Review of "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health"

After a brief vacation in the land of poutine, ketchup flavoured chips, Tim Horton's, and my awesome niece and nephews, I'm back in California where it still hasn't rained. The spouse and I have decided to install artificial grass in our yard, but dang!! That stuff is pricey!! Someone should work on implementing some sort of tax break for getting it installed.

This week, I received a request to look over a paper entitled "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health". The paper was published in 2009, and one of it's authors is Giles-Eric Séralini (you can read about the "Séralini affair" on Wikipedia. My previous posts on his work can be found in the index under "Seralini Study").

The paper (I'll be referring to it as the "de Vendômois paper") is freely available so you should be able to view it. Monsanto wrote a response, but I'm going to go over the paper and my own impressions before reading Monsanto's. I will then provide an overview of those critiques and my conclusion.

When a GMO goes through the regulatory process with the FDA and other agencies, a feeding study is performed where the GMO is fed to rats for 90 days and different parameters are measured. The goal is to determine if there are any health impacts during this time period. Since the rats used in these studies live 2.5-3.5 years, 90 days represents approximately 7-10% of their lifespan.

de Vendômois obtained data from Monsanto's 90 day feeding studies for three strains of corn: one strain was Round-up Ready (NK603) and two strains contained the Bt-toxin (MON810 and MON863 - please see this excellent post from Biofortified on how Bt works). de Vendômois outlines that he had to get court orders to obtain some of the data, and worked with Greenpeace to get these.

The 90-day feeding studies performed by Monsanto consisted of 200 male and 200 female Sprague-Dawley rats for each feeding study. There were two doses of GM-feed, meaning that some rats got more GM corn in their feed than others (11% and 33%).  Of the 400 rats in each study, only 80 were fed the GM diet, while 320 were controls. de Vendômois states that the large number of controls is because there were several types of control feed: some were from the non-GM variety of the GM corn, but other non-related corn were also included as controls. de Vendômois was not pleased with the fact that there were way more control rats than rats being fed the GM stuff.

I understand the use of different types of controls, as well as wanting equal number of treatment and control rats. In having so many controls, I imagine that Monsanto wanted to figure out if any health impact observed was due to the corn itself or due to the transgenic protein. Here's a completely fictional example: if I take a Granny Smith apple and make it glow in the dark, I'd do a feeding study to determine the impact of the glowing gene on rats. As a control, I'd use a regular Granny Smith apple. But I might also want to include a Red Delicious apple as a second control. That way, if I see something odd happening, I'd be able to determine if it was due to the glowing gene or something that's unique to the Granny Smith apple (such as higher acidity). Yet I also understand the perspective of wanting to have a more equivalent number of rats. But doing the logical math, I'd assume that the 80 treatment rats get broken down to 40 per dose, and further broken down to 20 per gender. That's pretty good (I thought that this criticism was pretty ironic, since 20 per gender per treatment is more than what Séralini used in his own study, done a few years later). However, for some reason, apparently only 10 of the 20 rats were chosen each time for the blood and urine collection. Additionally, blood and urine were taken at only 2 time points, and de Vendômois thought that this was far too low for any useful statistical analysis. I'm REALLY curious to see what Monsanto's response is to this! You'll just have to keep reading!

de Vendômois points out that 2 dose levels is not standard and that 3 is the recommendation. I double-checked the OECD guidelines and this statement is accurate (please see point 17 in the link).

The Sprague Dawley Rat
From Wikipedia

Then, the paper starts going downhill. The description of the statistical tests used makes no sense. They run the data-set through a variety of tests, jumping from one to the next, and the only reason I can think of is that they're just fishing for some type of significance, regardless of how. Based on my understanding of stats, you select a statistical method/test for the type of data that you're analyzing and the comparison you're doing, and you stick with it throughout the entire data-set. If you find significance, great! If you don't, then you can't just say "alright, now I'll run it through this separate test to see what I can find," unless there's a very good reason for doing so. No such reason is provided.

Spouse, I can hear your demands for a better explanation about this in my head. This article from Wikipedia gives a great description of why this is important: "When large numbers of tests are performed, some produce false results, hence 5% of randomly chosen hypotheses turn out to be significant at the 5% level, 1% turn out to be significant at the 1% significance level, and so on, by chance alone. When enough hypotheses are tested, it is virtually certain that some falsely appear statistically significant, since almost every data set with any degree of randomness is likely to contain some spurious correlations. If they are not cautious, researchers using data mining techniques can be easily misled by these apparently significant results."

This is a big flaw and basically makes their analysis meaningless. I scanned through the rest of the paper and nothing really jumped out. The measurements where they find significance are not maintained between sexes, and that doesn't make sense for things like liver or kidney function (I double-checked with my brother and sister-in-law, who are MDs, and they agreed that after balancing for weight, a toxic compound should impact males and females equally).

Alrighty... Moving on to Monsanto's response, which is readily available here.

In addition to the issues pointed out before, a solid point that Monsanto makes is that de Vendômois doesn't examine whether or not the "statistically significant" values are within the normal range for the strain of rat. Meaning, is it biologically relevant?

Monsanto also states that their study has enough data for the standard statistical test used for these types of studies. Their point is that if de Vendômois had done his analysis with the "normal" stats methods, there might have been enough data.

Monsanto's response concludes with statements from 3 international regulatory agencies who reviewed the data: the European Food Safety Authority, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand, and the French High Counsel on Biotechnology. All the agencies conclude that the reanalysis of Monsanto's data was performed with crummy statistics and the results don't mean anything.

However, Monsanto does not address the issue of 2 dosages.

Here are my conclusions: regarding the safety of these specific traits, I think there's a LOT to suggest that they're safe. One of the common comments that I've read from those who defend Séralini's work is that his studies indicate that follow-up and longer-term analysis is needed. I completely understand that argument, but the work has already been done. For example, look at this paper which consists of a short-term feeding study of MON810 in pigs (note that I've only read the abstract): its conclusion is that there were a few differences that merited a long-term study. Then, they performed the long term study and found that any differences observed were not biologically relevant. Séralini has been at this for quite some time and he hasn't found anything that is biologically relevant. Feeding studies for NK603 can be found here, here, here, and here (the last link is a study by Monsanto).

The second issue is that of standardization of feeding studies. I've written about this before: I think that there's need for standardized tests as well as their analysis. de Vendômois's paper highlights the point, particularly for the analysis! Imagine how much money and animal lives would be saved if crummy feeding studies weren't performed. If the OECD guidelines are the ones that are supposed to be followed for feeding studies, then everyone should stick to them, whether its Monsanto or Séralini.

I want to be abundantly clear about this: I think that crops should be regulated based on the trait, not on the method used to generate that trait. So standardized tests should be used for conventional crops, too, when necessary. It doesn't make sense to have huge feeding studies on a trait that has already been tested: other experiments and data may be required, but a feeding study to determine the effect of the transgenic (i.e. "added") protein seems redundant. It seems ironic that hybrids such as nectaplums or broccoflowers aren't regulated when so many different genetic events occur during their creation.

Anyhoo, that's it for this paper. The next few posts I have planned are to finish up my series on sequencing papers examining GMOs, and my former work-spouse asked me to write about GMOs and butterflies. If you have any requests, questions, suggestions, or corrections to provide, please comment below!

Learning about GMOs: A reflection on year one

It's been over a year now since I started learning about GMOs and writing this blog. I've learned so much and am humbled every day by how much I have yet to learn. But as I look back and reflect on the knowledge gained, I also see that it's quite a bit, particularly considering all the life-events that have taken place in parallel. I thought that I'd share with you my learnings about GMOs that have surprised me the most.

Some of these were on the level of an M. Night Shyamalan movie-twist for me. Some are not even about GMOs, but just about agriculture and our food in general. Yeah... I kinda feel embarrassed about not knowing a few on the list... Don't judge me!

Corn. But without the syringe in it to depict that it's a GMO,
it's not really scary.
From Wikimedia Commons

1) The vast majority of fruits and vegetables are not transgenics. Before starting this blog, I thought that most of what we ate were transgenic crops, meaning that they had a gene/protein from a different species. I had heard so much about tomatoes with fish genes and strawberries that would never freeze that I just assumed that all that stuff was out on the market. Every time I picked up a fruit in the supermarket that was particularly large, I thought to myself "huh... that's got to be a GMO". You know those grapes that are the size of a tennis ball, and squirt juice everywhere when you bite into them? Every time I ate one, I'd close my eyes and thank the mysterious GMO gods for that sweet delicious nectar. Little did I know that none of these fruits were GMOs. They were genetically modified in the sense that they had been bred and selected to have optimal sweetness and size through cross-breeding. But they weren't transgenic organisms. There are only a handful of transgenic crops such as corn, soy, or cotton. The short list can be found in this database (note that you have to select the type of approval to determine if the GMO has been commercialized or not).

2) Organic food production uses pesticides (EDIT: Not all organic food production and only pesticides that are permitted under the USDA's organic label and approved by the EPA. Which is also true about conventional farming). This one blew my mind. I couldn't believe it! I thought that by definition, organic food production did not use pesticides. Not only that, but some of the pesticides used are more toxic than those applied in conventional farming. The difference is that the pesticides used in organic farming are not synthetic. No idea why that is better... Here's a list of pesticides approved for use in organic farming.

3) Many plant traits are developed using mutagenesis. And can be labeled "Organic". This one melted my brain and the spouse still doesn't get it altogether. Mutagenesis is the use of radioactivity or mutating chemicals to create random mutations in plants, and selecting those with the desired trait (here's my blog post with an overview of various papers, and here's the Wikipedia article on the technique). This article from the New York Times lists wheat, barley and even ruby red grapefruits as crops generated through mutagenesis. Imagine that!! The delicious, organic, grapefruit from my farmers' market was developed using radiation to randomly create mutations, and somehow that's less scary than a GMO. Why the organic food movement isn't fighting for their labeling seems hypocritical, and the fact that they can exist under the umbrella of the organic label is astounding. Again: Mind. Blown.

4) There's lot of peer reviewed research on GMOs, both publically and privately funded. I mean a LOT. I remember the first time I typed in MON810 into PubMed (a database hosted by the NIH), I got over 100 hits. That's 100+ studies that have looked into some aspect, such as identification or safety, on a single seed/trait (MON810 is Monsanto's Bt corn) Since it's a database search, let's assume that some of them are only loosely related to MON810. But even if 50% are discarded, that still leaves us with 50+ studies on a single trait/seed. In a Q&A with the founders of Biofortified.org, they mentioned that the most common misconception about GMOs is that there aren't any studies. Although I didn't think that there were no studies whatsoever, I was blown away by the sheer number/volume of studies, many of which are publicly funded.

Don't get me wrong: just because I haven't read any credible studies suggesting that GMOs pose a health risk does not mean that we should stop studying them, both in terms of technical methods in their generation, as well as safety. Go ahead. Go to pubmed and type in MON810 :)

5) Types of traits used to generate GMOs generally benefit farmers, not shoppers. What I mean is that there aren't many GM crops where the trait introduced was selected because it would make me want to buy it in the grocery store. There are several crops in the pipeline designed for me, such as non-browning apples or soy that has healthy oils (my post about the non-browning apple is here). But at the moment, most crops are designed to benefit farmers, such as Bt crops which help farmers reduce the amount of pesticides sprayed to fight worms, or Glyphosate resistant crops, which help farmers fight weeds using glyphosate (my post about glyphosate is here). I have yet to write on the topic of whether GM crops lead to decreased pesticide use, so I have a lot to learn on this topic. 

It's important not to misinterpret this point: when costs decrease for farmers, the end consumer pays less. But this is an indirect benefit for the shopper. It'll be interesting to see if crops that directly benefit shoppers will impact their perspectives on GMOs.

6) The amount of misinformation surrounding this topic is staggering. And depressing. It ranges from the subtle, where statements are simply taken out of context or the complete findings of a paper are not provided, to outright lies. I expected that there would be misinformation, but I guess I was pretty naïve and didn't think it would be THAT bad. But it's downright awful. For example, the Institute for Responsible Technology's website states "The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function." The paper which this statement is based off of actually says "it is highly unlikely that the gene transfer events seen in this study would alter gastrointestinal function or pose a risk to human health" (this topic was reviewed in this post). This is a subtle little white lie, when you contrast it with the downright deceptive (and dangerous) statement that GM insulin poses a health risk (Dr Kevin Folta reviewed this topic here).

I still have a tough time understanding why certain organizations would use such deceptive means to attack a technology. I think Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson said it best in his recent Facebook post on the topic of GMOs:  "If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct. In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with."

I was surprised at how many people distrust GMOs because of Monsanto. That's not a good reason for distrusting a technology with broad applications. It's like saying that you don't trust computers because of Microsoft. But conventional food growers buy Monsanto seeds too, and Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on GM technology. So what do life saving technologies, such as insulin, have to do with Monsanto? What about Golden Rice? What about bananas designed to combat nutritional deficiency in Uganda? I was taken aback at how vehemently these are opposed, just because of the Monsanto-boogie-man.

7) Transgenic seeds are not sterile. I was certain that transgenic seeds could not be replanted, even if a farmer wanted to. I was dead wrong. When farmers buy seeds from a biotech company such as Syngenta, they sign an agreement, and they are not allowed to replant seeds. However, the seed is not sterile or unviable. (The topic of replanting seeds and terminator seeds was covered in my blog post here).

8) Peer review doesn't mean anything these days. Even if you don't factor in the issue of predatory or pay-for-play journals, peer review needs a new paradigm (check out this article for a great expose of predatory journals). In an article that sounds an awful lot like a story about drug trafficking, a "peer-review ring" got recently busted for abusing the academic review process. Although there's a growing number of ways to share concerns or criticisms about a paper, it hasn't led to a change in the review process. There's a whole website dedicated to covering stories about peer reviewed articles getting retracted.

Setting aside the reason behind errors in scientific journals, be they deliberate or not, there needs to be a positive feedback loop.

Personally, I think that scientists in the private sector should be able to provide feedback to the reviewers and editors about one of their products. They provide press-statements anyway once the paper's been published, so wouldn't it make sense to have their feedback and criticism in hand as a non-voting voice in the review process. Do you know who would read every single sentence several times, including the Supporting Materials section, in a paper that suggests that a GM trait is harmful? The scientist who made it and the company who commercialized it. If anyone is going to identify a flaw in a paper, it will be them. I don't think that their statement should carry weight in the decision of whether or not a paper should be published. But I think it will make the reviewer's job easier to have their observations in hand.


For the final point, I interviewed the spouse to find out what had surprised him most from all our discussions:

"9) That the greatest tool in combating misinformation on scientific topics is for scientists to be better communicators and to better educate the public. I was surprised to see that the link between the public's superstition regarding GMOs is directly related to their education or lack thereof. If we had better scientific literacy or better science education, it would cause less freak-outs. As a non-science person, my AHA!-moment came when I finally understood how eating a strawberry-fish smoothie would be same thing as eating a strawberry with a fish gene in it, because we can process and digest proteins from both species. That's such a small-little thing, but it created such a mental barrier."

Well, there you have it. Feel free to comment on the things that have surprised you most on this topic.

Handout for #ABS2014 - Independent Investigation of Truth in Social Media

Hi Peeps,

I'm giving a talk at this year's Association for Baha'i Studies. My talk is about the importance of setting aside biases, prejudices, and preconceived ideas before exploring a topic. This is particularly important for gauging the validity of information about science & tech that is presented in social media where information is not vetted and anyone can post anything. It also explores the idea that targeted marketing and the nature of social media don't expose us to different ideas that force us to consider different perspectives. Rather, we're exposed to more of our own perspective. I'll try to provide overviews of various studies that have analyzed the science of changing minds and the importance of practicing slow, conscious thinking when considering information, so that we do not come to the unconscious conclusions that our biases lead us towards. This will be supported with quotes from Baha'i literature that reinforce the principle of the independent investigation of the truth.

I put together a handout for the participants and here it is. All the information is from other websites, and I've provided the citations in the document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Bi-jntXzxIkuaq6d2mnNKYbqH1A06qNIWRm7FKCNqQ/pub

Remember: before you post it, Snope it!!

If you want a copy of my talk, please email me.

Review of "10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health"

As you may know, Mr Chubby-Cheeks is getting potty trained. What I never expected is how exhausting the whole ordeal is. If someone set up a service where you dropped your kid off and
picked him/her up a few days later fully potty-trained, they'd be gazillionaires.

Anti-GMO protest at BIO international conference 2014 in San Diego
Taken by a friend who attended.

Let's get down to business (no pun intended)... A story popped up in my Facebook feed that I have to take the time to address. It is entitled "10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health". Really caught my eye. It's actually a pretty good at bringing together the top health concerns that the anti-GMO movement has about the technology. I've reviewed most of them, so there will be a lot of links here to previous reviews and to the studies themselves. I'll go in the exact order as the article.

1) Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood.
I first reviewed this paper last year. The authors identified Bt protein Cry1Ab in maternal and fetal blood. This protein is found in some GMOs, but is also commonly used as a pesticide in organic farming. The biggest issue I had with the paper was the "so what" factor. We lack the receptors for the protein, so it has no impact on us. Did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs? Are you concerned that it might be toxic to you? Probably not (if you are concerned, then you've missed out on the greatest source of joy known to human taste buds...) Some chemical compounds behave differently between species, and both Bt's Cry1Ab and chocolate are examples of this.

Since my original review last year, I've learned that the paper is deeply flawed due to the fact that the researchers' measurements were based on an experiment/assay that was designed to detect Bt in plants, not in humans. This post in Biofortified.org eloquently outlines that the pregnant women in the study would have had to eat several kilos of corn in order to get the Bt measurements that were detected in their blood.

2) DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
Ummmm... No. That's not the paper's findings. I reviewed this one fairly recently. The paper found that whole genes from our food can be detected in our plasma. That does not mean that it's been integrated into our DNA: it means that it's been found floating in the space between cells. And that's any food, not just GMOs. I also outlined how the paper's findings are most likely due to contamination, since they did not include a negative control. However, even if the findings are accurate, DNA from GMOs behave no differently than DNA from organic or conventional foods. If you aren't concerned about the DNA from blueberries "transferring" into you, then you should not be concerned about DNA from GMOs either.

3) New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
The article states that this was a study from the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). There is no such study. There's a post on a webpage, but there isn't a peer reviewed article. I wrote about gluten allergies and GMOs last year, and it's a case of association with no causation (i.e the incidence of gluten allergies have increased over the past decade and the amount of GMOs we eat have increased too. But, so have the number of plasma screens manufactured). Additionally, GMO wheat has not been commercialized. The Celiac Disease foundation has spoken out against the IRT's report (Note that the IRT is an NGO which advocates for the elimination of GMOs from our food supply. It's not a university, college, or research institution). Recent studies have shed doubt on the existence of non-Celiac gluten sensitivity. So this "study" is blaming GMOs for something that may not even exist.

4) Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
This is the infamous Seralini paper, which was retracted, and recently republished in a different journal. This was the very first paper I reviewed, and frankly, I'm surprised it was ever published (which explains the retraction). The paper identified tumors in rats who were fed GMOs long-term, but the strain of rat used was predisposed to tumors. The paper did not perform statistical analyses and used too few rats, so it was not possible to determine if the tumors were due to the food or were due to the fact that the rats would get tumors regardless of what they were fed. A recent, fantastic re-analysis of their data suggests that their findings are due to chance. Finally, the findings from Seralini's paper are contrary to other long-term feeding studies (you can find a journal review here and a BioChica review here).

5) Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
This paper was interesting and here's the breakdown: as this Wikipedia article highlights, approximately 80% of breast cancer cases are hormone sensitive, meaning that they need estrogen in order to proliferate and spread. In this paper, they took 2 breast cancer cell lines: one was estrogen sensitive and one was not, and they examined the impact of increasing amounts of glyphosate on cell growth. They found that glyphosate has similar impact to breast cancer growth as estrogen, although not as strong, and did not have an impact on the proliferation of the non-hormone sensitive breast cancer cell line.

They did a series of experiments which suggest that this growth is mediated through estrogen receptors (suggesting that glyphosate is probably mimicking estrogen). I thought that it was an OK paper. The #1 issue I had with it were the dose-dependent effects. At high concentrations of glyphosate, the cell growth starts to dip back down to the level seen in controls. Here's the issue: often times, there's a saturation point when you're looking at dosage effects of a compound, meaning that at a certain point you won't get an effect no matter how much more of that compound you add. But based on my understanding, you shouldn't really get a decrease in the curve; it should just level out. Like the top two graphs:

From Wikimedia Commons

However, they saw a dip in cellular proliferation at higher concentrations (it was more bell shaped). Their measurements were made based on a comparison to controls, but the data for the controls wasn't provided, so I'm not sure if perhaps the controls were behaving wonky or if there's actually a "protective" effect once glyphosate concentrations reach a certain point. Given the nature of the experiments they were performing, I'm surprised this was omitted. The second issue I have is that their negative controls don't have error bars, despite the fact that they had 3 replicates. My understanding of the statistical test they performed is that the standard error for the negative control is pretty dang important, but it isn't shown in any of their analyses.

In the past, I've highlighted the many issues that surround the use of in vitro assays. The authors of the paper highlight some of these issues, along with the fact that their data doesn't mesh with previous studies that have examined the impact of glyphosate on cell proliferation (this paper that suggests that glyphosate protects against cell proliferation in vitro in 8 different cancer cell lines and even states that it be developed into an anti-cancer drug...). They suggest that it may be due to a) the specific cell-line they used, b) their use of raw glyphosate (i.e. not a formulation, such as Round-Up) and c) the concentrations of glyphosate used.

Monsanto wrote a response to the paper stating that there are many studies that have examined the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and have found that the compound does not cause cancer. Many articles took this study to mean that glyphosate causes cancer when that is not the study's findings: their findings suggest that glyphosate may cause breast cancer to proliferate. Monsanto points out that this finding is contrary to the body of evidence that exists on the topic. As I previously mentioned, the authors admit to this fact and discuss that the next step should be to examine this issue in mice/rats models for breast cancer. I think that that's a great next step. I'd also look at this in a few more breast-cancer cell lines.

So, am I concerned about GMOs based on this paper? I think that this is probably the most compelling research paper that I've read about a potential health risk surrounding glyphosate, but my conclusion is that the study must be reproduced and its issues ironed out. The paper isn't really about GMOs: keep in mind that not all GMOs are glyphosate resistant (i.e. Round-up Ready) and the use of glyphosate is not limited to GMOs (I've said it before and I'll say it again: lumping crops into bins based on the method used to generate them does not make sense). Even a labeling law wouldn't help with that. Additionally, the paper does several experiments with a compound in soybeans that is known to be estrogen-like, and glyphosate's impact is very similar. Meaning that there are "natural" compounds in our food that seem to have the same impact on breast-cancer proliferation that this paper's findings suggest for glyphosate. In learning about this topic, I found quite a few publications that have examined soy food intake in patients with breast cancer (examples here, here, and here) and I couldn't find a study that had found a positive correlation. So more research is needed.

6) Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects
Ummmmm... No. This is not a peer reviewed, published scientific study which the post claims. This is a publication by Earth Open Source, whose bias I have highlighted here.

7) Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
The paper, doesn't constitute research. It's a hypothesis. I tried reading it several times and it didn't make sense. But I felt a lot better when I learned that I wasn't the only one who scratched my head at it: it was reviewed by Keith Kloor over at Discover Magazine who reported an apt comparison between the article and one of Glenn Beck's chalkboard drawings.

So how did it get published? The paper is printed in a pay-for-play journal (also known as predatory journal), meaning that for a fee, you can get nearly anything published. Spouse, I can hear you now... "What do you mean?? Isn't that against research?" Yes. It is. It sucks. There have been several exposés on pay-for-play journals, and many (including myself) believe that it's eroding the quality of science (here's an overview from Nature.com). In this exposé, the journalist cut-and-pasted two articles together: one was a geology paper and the other was a medical paper. For added effect, he added graphs about Mars and the footnotes were about wine chemistry. Yet the paper was accepted in several journals.

Spouse, I know your next question is "then why aren't you submitting tons of articles??". Well, there's the ethics thing, but it costs about $1800 to publish in these crummy journals. Hence the "pay-for-play" label. The important point is that it is often difficult for individuals to determine if the research is any good, unless they're an expert in the field. And, as outlined in the link to Discover Magazine, experts in the field have stated that this particular study is junk.

8) Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
This paper is published in the Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, owned by the Omics publishing group. This publisher tops the list of predatory journals, and there's even a Wikipedia entry about the quality of their journals.

Notwithstanding, I read the paper and now my brain hurts from how painful it was to read. They examined glyphosate levels in humans and different animals. There's no indication of what was fed, how much was fed, how the animals were kept, or a million different variables for which there is no information. Any of these should invalidate the study. Their information about humans is even worse. It doesn't say anything about age, sex, weight, height, genetic background, how much food they ate, if they washed their food, how long they had been eating organic/conventional diets and, most mind-blowing of all, there's absolutely no definition for "chronically ill". I really don't know how you can draw any sort of conclusion from this study. Any single issue that I've listed here would be considered a fatal flaw that would exclude the paper from publication in a more prestigious journal, let alone having all of them combined in one hot mess.

9) Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
I read this study a while ago, but never wrote anything about it. The findings of the paper are pretty much in the title: they gave pigs GMO feed and non-GMO feed and identified differences between the two groups. I never wrote about it because to this day, the paper still isn't in PubMed, which is the NIH's database for scientific publications. It was because of this paper that I learned that PubMed doesn't index journals of low caliber or newly established journals. I felt like the NIH was weeding out the worst of the worst for me.

However, the paper has been thoroughly criticized by many.  Here's a brief list of a few of the issues:

• This post, by Mark Lynas, highlights the degree to which the data is cherry-picked. The difference in "inflammation" between the GM-fed and non-GM-fed pigs is apparent only when you break down the degree of inflammation into subcategories, but there's no difference if you view it as a single category. Overall, there's a high rate of inflammation for both groups, which is not explained in the paper. At the same time, there are several parameters where GM-feed could be argued as having a protective effect (there's 50% fewer heart-abnormalities in pigs fed GM-grain), but this isn't discussed.  
• As explained by Dr Anastasia Bodnar, the authors do not analyze the compositional differences in the feed between the two groups. Previous studies have determined that the environment (i.e., water, soil, geography) of a crop has a greater impact on proteins and metabolites than whether or not the crop is a GMO [my review of the topic is here]. As such, the differences seen in the pigs may not be due pesticides or presence/absence of the transgenic protein, rather, they may be due to differences in composition of the feed.
• The study is a fishing expedition. Meaning that they're looking for something, no matter what it may be. As outlined by Dr David Tribe, if you take 2 groups of things and measure ~20 parameters, one of them is bound to be different. The authors do not perform the proper statistics nor do they examine the relevance of the findings. Does it matter that certain variables are different between the groups? Why are they different?  
• This interview with Val Giddings highlights that the animals had abnormally high rates of pneumonia, which points to the possibility that something wonky was going on.

In conclusion, even if the paper's findings are real, there's no knowing whether it was due to something associated with the transgene or not, because they didn't account for natural variation in the feed.

10) GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.
There are three papers associated with this bullet point. The first is a review and I agree with a few of the points it makes. It highlights the need for standardized tests and statistics in animal feeding studies for GMOs, and anyone who followed the Seralini debacle would probably agree. It summarizes papers that have performed feeding studies and their results. The biggest issue I have with the paper is that it doesn't remove flawed papers from their review list and it also doesn't distinguish between feeding studies for GMO crops that have been commercialized vs crops that have never been submitted for regulatory approval. However, the paper does not conclude that "GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence". The second paper is also a review/opinion, and the first author is affiliated with "Friends of the Earth". Skip! (Spouse, to clarify, the reason I'm skipping is a) it's not novel research, it's a review with an editorial slant and b) it's like reading an editorial by Syngenta advocating for looser regulation on GMOs. Of course that's what they'd advocate for! You don't even need to read it to know what they'll say). The third paper, is not even a review. It's an opinion/commentary published in 2002 in Nature Biotechnology (a high caliber journal). It outlines possible unintended consequences that could happen with a GMO, none of which have ever been documented/identified to the best of my knowledge.

My conclusion: none of these studies prove anything about GMOs. At best, they might suggest something and follow-up is needed. But, many are duds. Actually, to bring this article full-circle, a few are turds. Get it? Because of potty-training? Hilarious, right???

Scientist for sale!

Every graduate student is faced with the seemingly eternal dilemma of “academia vs industry”. Which one do you pick? I struggled a lot with this false dichotomy throughout my studies and would switch camps from one day to the next as I tried to decide.

As I “grew up”, I saw the antsy-ness in the spouse at wanting a family, and I myself had an incredible need to feel “settled-down”. I wanted a life whose furnishings weren’t selected based on how easy they are to take apart and reassemble for the next move. I started leaning towards a career in industry. I made up my mind sometime in the 4th year of my PhD, after I recovered from the “why on God’s green earth did I get into this mess”-phase? (This phase is experienced by every grad student I know, somewhere in their 4-5th year, where they want to quit and question their poor life choices. I only got through my slump because the spouse drove me to work everyday and forbade me to quit. Literally). I noticed at that point that my supervisor’s primary role was to write grants. I only saw him in the lab when a big paper was about to be published, and journalists came into the lab to take his picture. I decided that I loved lab-work too much and that grant-writing wasn’t the right career for me. On top of that, I did the math and realized that I’d probably be close to my 40’s by the time I was earning enough money to own a decent place with my own washer and dryer.

I didn’t tell my supervisor nor did I tell my committee members. I knew that there were some in academia who would consider my choice to have been “selling out”. But I always thought that if I had made the “wrong” choice, I could always go back to academia. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that my choice would represent my ethical standards to the world around me.

As I read comments and criticisms about the biotech industry, about how X study cannot be trusted because it came from a company or was funded by such-and-such, it baffles me that the choice that I made has made me less ethical in the eyes of the public. Somehow, I sold my ethical standards to the highest bidder when I started working in a commercial environment.

Universities do not have a litmus test to measure your ethics. Companies do not have a compass that will help them determine the direction of your moral standards. As such, there are unethical individuals in both areas. More importantly, there are many individuals with a clear sense of what is wrong and right. Science is science. Crummy science can be produced in publically funded labs. Amazing studies can be published by individuals affiliated with an industry. There are many examples of both.

There are so many dichotomies around me that I feel are absolutely false and they’re on a very broad range of topics: science vs religion, organic vs GMO, motherhood vs career… In all these cases, I feel that the dichotomies exist because the issues are not well understood. Without understanding GMOs, it’s difficult for some individuals to see that it could be adopted into organic farming. Without understanding what my faith stands for, it’s difficult for some to see that my beliefs make me a better scientist. And because some individuals do not understand the nature of research and its funding, they believe that receiving funding from an organization or company taints that work. But the two can and, I believe, should co-exist, because the two make for better research. There are certain jobs in government and in academia that I would excel at because of the work I’ve done in industry. To dismiss the skills and training of those in industry by virtue of where they were gained and not because of their quality is a loss to the public arena. For example, if there were a commission set up to solve the problem of antibiotic resistance in public hospitals, wouldn’t you think that a person who worked in a company who made the antibiotics might be an excellent candidate for such a commission? Or is that individual’s motivation to be eternally questioned due to their place of employment? So it irks me to no end that Seralini’s recently zombified “GMOs cause tumors” paper would carry the following disclaimer: "The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests, and that, in contrast with regulatory assessments for GMOs and pesticides, they are independent from companies developing these products.”
 
I’m not going to review the paper, because Dr Kevin Folta’s blog expresses every thought I had about it and much more. The purpose of this post isn’t even to debate whether the statement cited above is accurate. It’s to argue that even if it is, it shouldn’t matter. In biotech, and tech in general, industry sectors are becoming more and more inbred; meaning that everyone has worked everywhere. Try finding someone in Silicon Valley who has worked for a single employer! It’s nearly impossible. Yet somehow, people are under the impression that if you work for someone for 2-3 years at some point in your career, the company owns part of your soul and can summon you to perform dirty work at the drop of a hat. Don’t you want someone who worked at Oracle to fix the database issues at the Veteran’s department? Don’t you want someone who worked at Google to build the next government-funded website? Or do those experiences somehow bring loyalties into question? Then why would someone who worked at Syngenta not be a great candidate to work at the FDA? Or why should I not dream of working at the NIH or Office of Science in the later years of my career?

When my son, Mr Chubby-Cheeks, was around 18 months, he started noticing my absence when I went to work. My husband decided that the best thing to do would be to teach him the value of what I do so that “Mommy’s at work” wouldn’t become some dreaded place that sequesters one of his parents. So my kid has learned to say “Mommy is a scientist. She makes the world a better place”. As cheesy as it is, I remember tearing up the first time he told me that. I know that it’s the mantra for many researchers and scientists, in industry and academia alike. Yet somehow, it is thought that a cold gloom was cast upon me and my mantra changed to “she wants to destroy the world” as I signed my employment documents (which of course, is the Secret Oath of every scientist). And I don’t even work in Big Ag! I can’t imagine the stigmas that they have to deal with!!

As I read papers and note flaws in their design, particularly studies that use technologies I’m very much familiar with, I genuinely wish that there were more collaboration between industry and academia, because they could help each other so much. But so long as this false dichotomy continues to prevail in the minds of the public and the perceived risk of tainting science remains high, then I understand why it doesn’t happen.

Monsanto is suing Vermont?? Part 2

Howdy y'all, if you missed my post earlier this week, it was about the GMO labeling law in Vermont, the lawsuit that has come about as a consequence of the law, and the fundraising campaigns which claim that Monsanto is suing Vermont.

The four plaintiffs in the lawsuit are The Grocery Manufacturers Association, Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers. I could not find reliable information indicating that Monsanto was a member of these organizations. I claimed that fundraising campaigns, particularly the campaign led by SumOfUs.org, is misleading the public by stating that the funds will be used to "lead the fight against Monsanto".

I wrote to SumOfUs.org asking how the money would be fighting Monsanto if the company is not one of the plaintiffs. Today, I received this response:

"Thanks for the questions.
 

I wanted to provide you with the membership list from the GMA's website, before it was removed earlier this year, to confirm that Monsanto is a member. It's attached.

I'd also flag that in a political fight over labeling that did require disclosure, the Washington state ballot over labeling of GMOs, Monsanto contributed more than $5 million to the campaign to defeat it, while the GMA itself donated more than $7 million. GMA only disclosed their donors (as required under WA law) on that campaign after the WA Attorney General sued them to acquire that information.

Unfortunately, federal disclosure laws governing where GMA's funding comes from are not as strong. It is clear, however, that both Monsanto and the GMA are prepared to spend large sums of money defeating labeling laws that do enjoy public backing, as in Vermont, and that their interest in transparency is minimal.

Hope this is useful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/06/big-corporate-spending-pays-off-in-washingtons-genetically-modified-food-fight/

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022060417_522lawsuitxml.html "

 

They included an attachment with a table of GMA's membership. The list is huge and includes Monsanto, as well as Syngenta. Every food manufacturer that you can think of off the top of your head is probably listed, as well as some members or associates that you wouldn't think of, such as VWR, Oracle, and Microsoft.

 

I went to the Attorney General's website for the state of Washington to find out how much Monsanto had contributed to the campaign through the GMA to defeat the labeling law in Washington. The list of contributors can be found here. Monsanto's not on the list, but it doesn't really matter since they contributed 5 million dollars separately.

Seriously. The amount of money being spent on all of this is pretty disgusting.

 

I wrote to Monsanto directly to confirm that it's a member of the GMA. Their response simply stated: "Monsanto is one of the more than 300 member Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)."

I'm of two minds here. I absolutely agree with SumOfUs.org that contributions should be disclosed because it's hard to know what all parties are doing. But for that very same reason, we do not know if Monsanto is the primary donor to the GMA for this lawsuit. Consequently, the fundraising campaign that SumOfUs is driving is misleading (I might downgrade the campaign from misleading to sleazy :) ). If one reads the description of the lawsuit on SumOfUs' website, one would think that Monsanto's name would be front and center on the list of plaintiffs.

In chatting about this with the spouse and with friends, none of us have any doubt that the reason why Monsanto's name is touted is to drum up support in fundraising efforts. After all, SumOfUs could equally say that Syngenta is suing Vermont, or even the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (who is also a member of the GMA, according to the list I received... who knew??). But neither of these have the same ring to it or evoke the same feelings as "Monsanto", much less America's beloved companies such as CocaCola or Mars. Someone's train of thought might be "Mars --> Snickers --> Snickers' SuperBowl Ad --> Betty White --> Betty White is suing Vermont? I love Betty White!!"

SumOfUs.org should not be singled out in this tactic. MoveOn.org has several petitions hoping to "block Monsanto from suing Vermont". The Organic Consumers Association is raising funds to "help defeat Monsanto and the GMA". It seems pretty clear that the reason why Monsanto is being used is to play on people's sentiments and biases against the company.

My concluding thoughts here are against Monsanto. I understand why Monsanto is defending its products and its customers. If GMO sales drop, it's not only Monsanto who is impacted, but many farmers as well. So there's a lot at stake and I really get it. But my opinion is that, instead of spending all this money on political campaigns, the money might have been better spent educating the public about the company's technology. Frankly, I don't see the labeling debate going away anytime soon, and Monsanto will continue spending money out the wazoo to defeat these efforts, unless they educate the public about their products and about genetic engineering. The more money Monsanto spends in political campaigns will only entrench the publics' negative views about them. Sponsor an episode of Cosmos!!!

Well, that's all I've got on this story... Feel free to share your thoughts and comments below.

Next week, I'll return to my ongoing series about the use of NGS technology in studies examining if DNA/RNA from our food have any impact on us. I'll also be potty training the kid (looking at these numbers and the money wasted has left me thinking of words associated with 'potty').
 

Monsanto is suing Vermont? Whaaaaat??

I've seen a whole bunch of articles about how the the "Mighty Monsanto" is taking the "tiny state of Vermont" to court over its labeling laws. To recap, back in April, Vermont passed a law mandating all foods to be labelled if they are made with genetically modified crops. The law is to take effect in July, 2016.

I promised the spouse that I wouldn't write another article about labeling because, as he so eloquently put it, "it's such a divisive topic that it won't be helping matters. Unless you write an article about how a label should be written". As Barney Stinson would say: Challenge accepted!

But this article isn't just about labeling. It's also about the law in Vermont and the fundraising campaigns to "help defeat Monsanto".

When Vermont's labeling law was enacted into action, there was a section entitled "Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Special Fund" (text of the law is here). If you read the text of this section in the law, they were expecting a lawsuit and many analysts stated that a lawsuit was almost inevitable. The Attorney General stated that "he had advised lawmakers as they deliberated that the law would invite a lawsuit from those affected 'and it would be a heck of a fight, but we would zealously defend the law'." In fact, this is not Vermont's first experience with a lawsuit surrounding food labels, so one may say that the fund was set up based on "lessons learned".

The lawsuit, whose full text can be found here, describes why the plaintiffs (i.e. the people who are suing) think that the law is illegal. IMHO, these are the two points that standout:

• "The act is premised on a legislative finding that some consumers want to avoid food derived from genetic engineering because they distrust the FDA's findings or otherwise object to the use or prevalence of biotechnology in agriculture. The State does not purport to share those views, however, and it has exempted broad categories of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients from these requirements". 
• i.e. The plantiffs are asking "why do I have to label my products, but they don't have to?" I agree here. Doesn't make sense why some categories are exempt if your argument is "right to know".
• "The proscriptions in Act 120 are beyond Vermont's power to enact. The State is compelling manufacturers to convey messages they do not want to convey, and prohibiting manufacturers from describing their product in terms of their choosing, without anything close to a sufficient justification. The State is forcing the costs of this experiment on out-of-state companies and citizens to which it is not politically accountable, and it is undermining and impeding the federal government's interest in uniform, nationwide standards for food labeling prescribed by duly authorized expert federal agencies."
• i.e. The law is in violation of the First Amendment by forcing a company to say something that it doesn't feel like saying. (I guess that means that when I was a kid and my brother used to sit on me until I said that he was awesome was also a violation of my First Amendment rights...). Additionally, the plaintiffs are stating that labeling is regulated at a federal level, and it doesn't make sense for a state to start its own labeling requirements at the expense of everyone else.

The FDA provides guidelines on food labeling, and their website does a good job describing the regulations that genetically modified foods are subject to and the evaluations that the crops undergo. Regarding the labeling of genetically modified foods, their website states that they support voluntary labeling of foods:

"We recognize and appreciate the strong interest that many consumers have in knowing whether a food was produced using genetic engineering. Currently, food manufacturers may indicate through voluntary labeling whether foods have or have not been developed through genetic engineering, provided that such labeling is truthful and not misleading. FDA supports voluntary labeling that provides consumers with this information and has issued draft guidance to industry regarding such labeling."

So that's the outline of the lawsuit. Oh! One important point. Here are the plaintiffs:

What the...?? Where's Monsanto?? Every article I've seen in my Facebook feed and twitter feed is stating that Monsanto is suing Vermont? In fact, go ahead and google "Monsanto sues Vermont" and check out the gems you'll find.

Leading the charge behind "Monsanto sues Vermont" is SumOfUs.org, who is raising money to "defeat Monsanto". Here's the text of their fundraising campaign:

"Just hours ago, the world's most hated corporation got even more evil. Monsanto and its allies in the Grocery Manufacturers Association have just announced they're suing the tiny, rural U.S. state of Vermont to stop a new law that simply requires genetically engineered foods to be labeled. In fact, the mere threat of a multi-million dollar lawsuit nearly caused the state to back off the labeling law altogether.

But Vermont is refusing to back down -- and they’re asking for our help. They're getting ready to fight back against Monsanto, and have even created a legal defense fund so people around the world can make donations to help them beat back Monsanto’s lawsuit.

The SumOfUs community is already fighting Monsanto on every front, but we need to show Monsanto now that we won't be intimidated. We won't let Monsanto bully our elected officials into submission. Will you chip in to stand with Vermont and fight back against Monsanto?"

Hellz yeah!! Who wouldn't be frothing at the mouth after reading that??

Except that Monsanto isn't part of the lawsuit. 

I cannot find an unbiased source of information that states whether Monsanto is a member of one of the organizations in the lawsuit, but I think we can assume they are.(Update here). However, if they are, I don't think they'd spend a lot of money on this legal battle because it's not really Monsanto's fight. This lawsuit belongs to Kelloggs, Nestle, CocaCola, PepsiCo, and others, who don't really need help from Monsanto in this one. Because Monsanto makes bags of seeds, such as these, which are brightly labeled and meet regulations. They don't make the cans of soup or Betty Crocker cake mixes, which would be affected by this legislation.

So I wrote to SumOfUs.org to find out how the money would be spent. I wrote from my personal email account and got an answer four hours later. Here's the full text of their response: 

"Thank you so much for your email and your question regarding our recent email to support Vermont as it begins its legal battle against Monsanto and its allies. SumOfUs is committed to helping the State of Vermont fight back, and that's where your donation truly makes a difference. We do not have a breakdown at the moment. 

Staff from the Vermont governor's office reached out to us directly before we ran this fundraiser, and we're talking with them about how we can best support the campaign. We're planning to make a very significant contribution to the legal defense fund on behalf of our supporters, but if we have enough funds it might also be strategic for us to continue to campaign outside of the legal process to defend this law and undermine Monsanto's position -- in strong consultation with our partners. Vermont is very aware that they won't be the last fight over GMO labeling in the US or around the world, and that other states need support too. 

You can be confident that your gift will go towards fighting Monsanto and defending this law in Vermont, including through the legal defense fund. But if you'd rather donate directly to the fund exclusively, then you can do so here: http://www.foodfightfundvt.org/donate-online"

I wrote back to them and asked how this would be helping the "fight against Monsanto" if the company is not one of the plaintiffs. I have yet to receive a response, but if I do, I will update this accordingly. (I received a response several days later. It can be found here.)

So, my theory is that by putting Monsanto's name on this, it will help fuel their fundraising campaign. Because if I were to participate in a survey, and were to be asked, "What image comes to mind when you think of 'Grocery Manufacturers Association'?", I'd say "Mr Hooper from Sesame Street". No idea why, but it's probably the word "grocer" in the phrase that evokes that memory. I'd be willing to bet that for the average American, the amount of money that they'd donate for a campaign against "MonSantan" vs a campaign against "Snack Food Association", would be very different. Additionally, nearly every company that sponsors the NFL is affiliated with the Associations in the lawsuit, so I doubt that they'd raise even half as much money if they listed "Snickers", "Tostitos" or "Cheetos" in this fundraising campaign.

There you have it. I believe that you're being misled by this campaign. In the few hours that's it's taken me to write this, the fundraising campaign has gone from 19,000 individuals who have been misled to 21,000.

In reading about Monsanto and trying to understand what they do, my stance at this moment is that Monsanto is like any other corporation in the world: trying to make good products, trying to maintain customer loyalty, and like any other long standing corporation in the US, they also have made mistakes and are learning from them. I think in this particular instance, Monsanto has done nothing wrong and it's depressing that it's named has to be invoked in order to raise funds under a false statement. 

My final thoughts are about labeling itself. The strongest argument that I've read about labeling is "right to know" and "consumers want it". But I still don't get it. So I'm going to follow the spouse's recommendation and give you suggestions. What is it that you want to know? Because the information you desire will drive the labeling information. Here's a list that I can think of:

• Wanting to avoid the trait/protein that has been added. If that's the case, then demand labeling for the protein that has been inserted. Additionally, it doesn't make sense to label things like corn starch or sugar, where there's no trace of the transgenic protein or DNA from the crop left behind.
• Wanting to know the technology being used. If that's the case, then include a requirement to label foods developed through mutagenic entities such as radiation and mutating chemicals. Don't you have a right to know about those? Did you know that these can be labeled as "Organic"? Why do genetically engineered crops get singled out in this argument?
• The concern about allergens or other health impacts. If that's the case, you still need to know what protein/trait has been added. A blanket statement saying that a food may contain genetically engineered materials is too vague.
• Wanting to avoid pesticides/herbicides. If that's the case, then the producer should list the pesticides/herbicides used. That includes pesticides/herbicides used in organic farming.
• A desire to avoid products made by Monsanto and other "Big Ag" companies. Monsanto produces non-GM seeds as well, so a label stating that a foods "may contain GE" won't help. 
• Wanting to avoid GE in general. If this is your argument, then just buy organic foods. Because in the end, that's probably what's going to happen: there will be foods labelled as organic, and then there will be everything else. Because producers won't be able to guarantee that GE crops aren't part of the mix. Just take a look at this excellent depiction of all the items that will need to change in the supply chain to make such a guarantee. Even Ben and Jerry's who is striving to go GMO free cannot find a source of milk that is not fed GM grain. Chipotle has had to go to Australia to bring in beef that is not grain fed (I've hypothesized that Chipotle has created a beef-teleportation device, which is why the beef from Australia is local and sustainable). 

I've read several arguments about how this debate can be compared to a desire for Kosher labeling or Halal labeling: there's a group of individuals who want a product with specific information or their food prepared a certain way, and then there's everyone else. It makes no sense to demand that everything be labeled. I'm drinking Diet Coke as I write this and the can does not say "non-Kosher", because that would not make sense. I completely agree with this argument and think that voluntary labeling is the way to go, and most importantly, I should not have to bear the cost of labeling for something that has no scientific merit or health concern.

But, if you feel otherwise, feel free to contribute to SumOfUs.org's campaign to "bring down Monsanto". Just know that what you're really contributing towards is the legal fees (i.e paying for lawyers) due to a poorly designed piece of legislation whose legality was questionable from the get-go. As harsh as it sounds, I think that either the lawmakers or the citizens of Vermont should have to bear the burden of this one.

Note: If anyone has information on Monsanto's contribution to the Associations that are part of this lawsuit, please let me know and I'll update the post with the appropriate links. I've written to the GMA to find out more and will update accordingly.  (Information on Monsanto's membership in the GMA can be found here).