Michael Pollan: Foodie journalist promotes organics, scorns mainstream farming

January 1, 2019 |
Michael Pollan
Activist, author, commentator

Michael Pollan is a journalist and advocate of organic and mostly vegetarian diets for health, environmental, and socio-economic reasons and is a sharp critic of what he calls “industrial agriculture,” including the use of genetically modified crops. He is seen as an important intellectual leader of the pro-organic food movement.

He was featured in a PBS special In Defense of Food that aired on December 29th 2015. In it, Pollan discussed the damages he believes are being done to American health by the industrial western diet. Pollan will also star in a four episode docu-series on Netflix, titled Cooked, which will focus on many of Pollan’s long held anti-modernization ideals. The series is set to debut February 19th, 2016.

He is the author of several best sellers, most notably the 2006’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which the New York Times named on of the best 5 books of the year, and 2008’sIn Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. Pollan has also appeared on screen in a co-starring role in the 2008 Academy Award nominee documentary Food, Inc. The film and his books explore the industrialization and corporatizing of agriculture and food production through examining practices related to both livestock and crops.

Pollan is often asked to act as an analyst on food issues, including crop biotechnology but he says different things to different audiences, appearing to cautiously endorse the safety of GMOs to one, but when talking to journalists or public audiences that are openly hostile to GMOs, he is far more critical of biotechnology.

In a 2013 interview with Grist’s food editorNathanael Johnson, Pollan projected a moderate tone on GMOs, “I’m a skeptic, and I’m critical of the way the technology [GMOs] has been developed and deployed and what it’s done to American agriculture, but I don’t think the technology itself is intrinsically evil.” Later that year he reiterated this belief to NPR, stating, “I haven’t seen any evidence that’s persuaded me that there’s any danger to health [from GMOs].”

Yet his response to similar questioning varies substantially when speaking to an “organic-friendly” audience. During an interview with John Robbins— an anti-biotech campaigner—Pollan revealed that he wrote anti-GMO food articles for the New York Times without any required balance from his editors:

“The media has really been on our side for the most part. I know this from writing for the New York Times where Ive written about a lot of other topics, but when I wrote about food I never had to give equal time to the other side. I could say whatever I thought and offer my own conclusions. Say you should buy grass feed beef and organic is better, and these editors in New York didn’t realize there is anyone who disagrees with that point of view. So I felt like I got a free ride for a long time.”[1]

Full video of Pollan-Robbins interview


Michael Pollan was born in 1955 and grew up on Long Island, New York. He is the son of author, lawyer and “high-priced” financial consultant Stephen Michael Pollan and gourmet and New York Magazine columnist Corrine Elaine Staller “Corky” Pollan. One of his sisters is actress Tracy Pollan, who is married to actor Michael J. Fox. Pollan has two other sisters Lori and Dana. Pollan lives in the Bay Area with his wife, the painter Judith Belzer, and their one son.

Pollan received a bachelor’s degree in english from Bennington College in Bennington, Vermont and a master’s degree in english from Columbia University in New York City. Pollan on several occasions, including during the opening of his PBS special and the interview with John Robbins, has described that his lack of education in the sciences is actually a benefit for him when discussing and writing on issues like food and nutrition..

In 2003, Pollan was appointed the John S. and James L. Knight Professor of Journalism at University of California Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, and the director of the Knight Program in Science and Environmental Journalism. In addition to teaching, he lectures widely on food, agriculture, health and the environment.

In 2009 he was named by Newsweek as one of the top 10 “New Thought Leaders.” and in 2010 was named to TIME 100, the magazine’s annual list of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Social media

Outside of print and film, much of Pollan’s advocacy work has been through social media. He has received a high degree of criticism for promoting on Twitter discredited studies or studies that have appeared in non-reputable journals. On Twitter, Pollan has (as of January 2016) almost half-a-million followers. In 2012, Pollan showed support on Twitter for a highly criticized study, including by some anti-GMO activists, done by Giles-Eric Séralini a French scientist who has produced several highly criticized papers on biotechnology. The study was later retracted.


He has also supported the opinions of an organization known as the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which is an openly anti-GMO organization founded by Séralini and other campaigning scientists. When they, in 2013, issued a statement claiming that the scientific consensus on GMOs does not exist, Pollan tweeted to help spread their message:

Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 1.20.05 PM

Pollan was also one of the first anti-GMO activists, along with other ‘reputable’ media sources like NaturalNews.com to promote the notorious findings by Australian researcher Judy Carman that alleged, in contradiction to numerous mainstream studies, that GMO corn caused irritation in pigs—claims since dismembered by a slew of scientists and journalists.

Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 1.35.34 PM

Almost weekly, Pollan can be found hawking one anti-GMO study or alarmist NGO claim on Twitter.

Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 1.33.20 PM

Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 1.34.34 PM

His large number of followers and his commitment to supporting organic food on Twitter have made him a vital messenger and defender of organic food industry funded science. The extent of his involvement with the organic food industry was revealed in emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act Request by the New York Times of former Washington State University researcher Chuck Benbrook. While he was at Washington State University, Benbrook was being funded exclusively by the organic food industry. Benbrook’s emails detailed how the organic food industry relied on a long list of seemingly independent journalists to promote and defend Benbrook’s work in both print and on social media. In response to a Stanford University study that found no nutritional benefit to organic food over conventional, Pollan endorsed Benbrook’s minority opinion on the study:

Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 1.20.51 PM

The Benbrook emails describe a long list of organic-friendly journalists and personalities and Pollan’s name is not only on this list, he receives special mention as a member of the industry’s “A-team.” The documents describe the A Team:

Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 1.37.03 PM

The FOIA documents showed that these interactions go beyond industry or science leaders pitching the occasional story to a journalist. The emails also reveal him as a key media consultant for industry leaders like David Bronner (of Dr. Bronner’s soaps). These are the types of industry over-reach that Pollan has criticized throughout his career.


  • Good Science Isn’t Bad for Our Diet: A Critique of Michael Pollan’s Food Politics, Adam Merberg in Berkeley Science Review 2012: “Regrettably, though, as in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan presents an overstated case against science, and the result is an argument layered with contradiction and distortion.”
  • Why Leading Foodies Tolerate Junk Science, Keith Kloor in Discover Magazine November 8th, 2012: “So yes, while politics (“who should control the food system”) is an underlying basis for much anti-GMO sentiment, there’s also no getting around that fear of genetically modified crops is a big factor, too. And that fear is a palpable force driving the anti-GMO ranks within the food movement, which Pollan et al cynically exploit to advance a political agenda that aims to change the way food is produced and curb the power of agricultural giants like Monsanto.”
  • Michael Pollan as GMO ‘denialist’ dupes credulous New York Times, Jon Entine on Forbes October 22, 2013: “The reality is that Pollan regularly, and increasingly, talks out of both sides of his mouth — there, I wrote it — and because of his influence he is inflaming a discussion about crop biotechnology that has already gone off the rails.”
  • The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals, Blake Hurst in a publication for the American Enterprise Institute titled The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals July 30th, 2009: “Pollan writes as if all of his ideas are new, but my father tells of agriculture extension meetings in the late 1950s entitled ‘Clover and Corn, the Road to Profitability.’ Farmers know that organic farming was the default position of agriculture for thousands of years, years when hunger was just around the corner for even advanced societies.”


Bibliography & Resources


87 thoughts on “Michael Pollan: Foodie journalist promotes organics, scorns mainstream farming”

  1. Michael Pollan is the Ronald McDonald of the elitist foodie cult.

    The guy is a professional storyteller. No credentials in science or agriculture or nutrition or economics, none.

    He doesn’t let any of that prevent him spinning his spooky campfire yarns, though. He claims ignorance gives him the edge. Spokesperson for entitled food snobs everywhere. Tireless defender of junk science and agile fomenter of mob hysteria, Pollan has become the orifice through which foodie pop science expresses itself.

    Hey, he’s made a ton of money at it this gig, so don’t knock it..

  2. Vani Hari, the Food Babe, catches a lot of (well-deserved) hell for her “if you can’t pronounce it, you shouldn’t eat it” bull crap.

    But that particular Foodie Turd belongs to Michael Pollan, from his book “Indefensible Foodie” (In Defense of Food, rather.)

    • Yeah, my personal least favorite steaming Pollan pile is “don’t eat anything your great-great-great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food”

      Pollan is one hell of a storyteller and one piss poor historian.

      I actually know some of what my ancestor here in America would “recognize” (a few tattered handwritten recipes have survived the ravages of time around here) and ggggrandma, it appears, wouldn’t have stuck up her nose at much of anything she could catch and put in the pot.

      We have to imagine Pollan’s great-great-great-grandmother was, out of necessity, not too finicky either. Probably living in the Middle East or one of those ancient Crapistan nations cooking anything she could get her hands on over a smouldering fire fueled with dried camel dung…and damned happy to have that.

      At any rate I’m pretty certain Pollan;s ancestor didn’t enjoy standing reservations at Chez Panisse. What a hypocrite!

      • As someone who teaches writing, I find it interesting that one of the most inane, vacuous, and meaningless statements Pollan has even concocted has been picked up as a sort of catechism for the Food Boob movement:

        “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.”


        “Breathe air, not too much, mostly Nitrogen.”

        “Drink fluid, not too much, mostly water.”

        Any other profundities, Mikey?

        • The statement is not inane, vacuous, or meaningless. Not sure how you could think such a thing. Dont eat too much? That seems like a reasonable idea. Dont eat “nutrients”, eat food – also reasonable. Mostly plants – meaning in the salad genre, not french fires and chips, You could have said he could be clearer, but I think he is understood. Maybe you could give an example of some other similarly vacuous sentences in another area so that I can be sure you are not just prejudiced against the meaning that you say his catch phrase does not have.

  3. Fiddling with DNA is has an inherent level of danger. That should be obvious. That is why GMOs are generally regarded as unsafe. And proving that they are safe is quite difficult. Those who claim they have done it are properly thought to be delusional, since it is quite a simple matter to create lethal GMOs.

    • Riding the subway has an inherent level of danger. That should be obvious. Those who claim to have done it safely are properly thought to be delusional since it is quite a simple matter to meet with an injurious situation.

      Hey, Mama is that you, Mama Santo — it”s you, isn’t it? I almost didn’t recognize you. How ya been?

      • Riding the subway is a more limited exposure that eating a food. We have been riding subways longer, and can better assess the risk. And transport systems are easier to understand and judge the risk and decide if you want to take that risk.
        Some people do not want to take the risk to fly. Is this thought to be unfair in some way?

        • Point by point:

          Come back and lecture us on the relative exposure after you have swabbed and cultured the seats, handles and cabin air of half a dozen crowded subway cars. Until you’ve cataloged all the bacteria, protozoa and viruses you have no standing

          Homo sapiens have been eating for about 100,000 years give or take 10,000 more or less. You been riding the subway that long, or does it only seem like it?

          Ask a geneticist or a molecular biochemist about how easy it is to get around NYC on the rail if they are as ignorant of the train schedules as you are of genetics and molecular biochemistry.

          So don’t fly. Also don’t hold up the flight for others who do want to fly. Also don’t tell us why you are afraid to fly, we really don’t care.

          • I ride the subway all the time in NYC, and don’t even want to think about the stuff on the seats. So far I’m still alive, but then again, my anecdote ain’t data. Or science. Still, personally speaking, I’d much rather ride on the subway, and I do so happily, than eat at Chipotle’s.
            Maybe Martin thinks we should assess the risk of GE even longer … Hey, I’ve been eating foods with GE modified ingredients for 20 years, longer than I’ve ridden NYC subways, but maybe that isn’t enough. Maybe I should eat them for another 50 years and see how that works out for me. I’m not worried.
            Martin needs to distinguish between risks HE wants to take, and evidently those are far and few between, so I presume he doesn’t get out much, and risks I personally DO want to take, which are plentiful. I am not going to drag him out of his basement into the scary world as long as he does not attempt to deny me my right to assess my own risks. Chipotle vs. GE? Hands down the latter, in terms of risk.
            Martin, if it isn’t “safe” enough for you, it’s simple. Don’t eat it. Eat organic or non-GMO. But don’t attempt to interfere with what I wisely and scientifically choose to eat. And that, my boy, is fair.

          • Yeah, he hasn’t even given me an opening to go off on muggings, derailments and the threat of terrorist attack on the subway. People still ride it anyway.

          • Oh, yes! Yes!!

            Charles Bronson is the man!

            Now there’s a guy who knows how to assess and handle risk. All in a day’s work if you’re qualified.

          • What, to describe a process that ends up with the same exact molecular products? Why would I support that? As Jon Entine has patiently explained, the molecules for GE sugar and non-GE sugar are exactly the same. Do you whine for a label for ruby red organic grapefruit, produced by mutagenesis? (look it up) Of course I don’t support labeling for your limited and unscientific political reasons. I support labeling for nutritional content and for allergens. That’s all. And voters have agreed with me, in the last four elections where that issue has been on the ballot.

          • I want an organic label on what kind of manure, poop, what have you, was used to fertilize, and an affirmation that this particular batch of poop-fertilized stuff has been tested and is certified as being free from e.coli and salmonella.

    • Your entire post is ridiculous. Yes, MODIFYING DNA has an inherent level of RISK. Risk is different than danger. We’re also ‘risking’ the discovery of highly effective solutions to many agricultural problems. GMOs are regarded as unsafe? By whom? NOTHING is ever proven safe. Have you ever made a GMO plant? Until you do, I’d hold off on the ‘delusional’ claims.

      • Ok, so you are saying that the claims to safety of GMO food needs to be qualified. Like the claims to the healthfulness of margarine needed to be. so just add “If I am not mistaken”, and most people will not complain.

        • Martin, GMOs are not a thing and there is no such thing as GMO food. There is no molecular or genetic difference, for instance between sugar made from organic sugar beets and sugar made from GMO sugar beet seeds. A laboratory could not tell the difference. There is no DNA in the product. As more than 270 global agencies have publicly stated, GMO is a process, not an end point. There is zero evidence that GM seeds result in crops/foods that are inherently more (or less) safe than organic or conventional foods. Zero evidence. As in 0. Now there are numerous foods grown with GM seeds that are more sustainable (Bt crops for example) or offer more nutrition (vitamin enhanced cassava) or protect plants from pathogens (GM papaya, GM American chestnut trees); but those are positive attributes. So your religious belief that GM seeds result in potentially less safe food supplies has zero grounding in science. This is not remotely similar to your specious margarine analogy. What we know is: breeding causes changes; there is nothing potentially more harmful when using GE precision breeding than when using conventional breeding, mutagenesis or other forms of breeding that are not as tightly regulated; GM crops are no more likely to introduce novel allergens into the world than traditional breeding or mutagenesis. Hope this information starts you on the path to exploring the science, rather than the suspicions, of modern farming.

          • Are you saying that GMO soybeans are the same as other soybeans, and that GMO corn is the same as other corn. Are you saying that there is no such thing as GMO corn? The difference is more like corn that was brought to the store by truck rather than by train?
            True that I am a pastafarian, but we do not have a doctrinal position on GMO spaghetti. Your claim that intervention in the laboratory is as safe any other intervention is not an obvious truth. And leads to the observation that “no evidence of danger is different from evidence of no danger”.)
            Modern farming is organic farming, which I endorse obviously.

          • Well there is no GMO spaghetti, because spaghetti is not alive and cant be GMOed. And there is no GMO wheat.
            Organic farming is not Modern farming. Conventional modern farming is based on best practices, not ideology.

          • The typical shallow response of an ignorant cement dwelling latte swilling entitled urban yuppie activist who has lots of naive unscientific opinions and knows squat about modern sustainable farming.

          • Martin, the idea that GM is harmful was invented by the organic industry. The organic industry must promote fear to dupe people into paying a 50% to 200% price premium for its products. The whole thing is very cynical. Hopefully one day you’ll have the wisdom and maturity to see that the cult you belong to is based on lies.

          • Modern farmers who use GE seeds, resulting in less diesel fuel, less tillage, less runoff, less toxic pesticides, and have higher yields would beg to disagree with you. Modern farming uses all available best practices to grow food while preserving water and air quality, and enriching their soils. Precision farming has developed by leaps and bounds over the past several decades. You may want to find out more by talking to your local farm bureau about modern farming methods. You have a right to prefer and endorse organic farming, and I have a right to use whatever practices are best for my crops. You do not have the right to prevent farmers from using safe, effective way, and allowable practices because of your own food biases, however.

          • 1. I oppose mandated vanity labels

            2. I looked myself for any of Salatin’s tactics that might scale up and apply around here – none

            3. You oversimplify the important stuff

            4. You overrate the unimportant stuff

          • I strongly oppose “contains GMO blah, blah, blah” labels as I would strongly oppose any other needless and potentially misleading label on anything. The reason is I do not care to encourage activists in their crusade to frighten and mislead consumers. I moderately support an officially sanctioned and enforced “GMO-free” vanity label similar to the “certified organic” label, if it is funded by the GMO-free industry. I am not interested in paying for labeling, testing or enforcement of vanity labels.

            Our families do general farming on a sizeable scale including a large dairy that complies fully with all CAFO regulations, assuring ours is a carefully managed and monitored operation in every aspect of nutrient management and land use. We are proud of our stewardship and our stockmanship. We manage our farm to assure the highest possible milk quality and have consistently been recognized with quality awards. Our cattle are healthy and highly productive, their genetics among the finest available. We take great pride in the comfort and condition of our livestock and resent activist insinuations that modern dairy cattle are abused, sick, drugged or otherwise abused — they are not.

            What else do you want to know Marty that is none of your damned business?

            Now tell me who you are, who you work for and what you do to earn your money.

          • Hmmm….2 days pass and no Marty. I guess he is not proud of what he does for a living. I wonder what he’s hiding? Must be hiding something pretty embarrassing. Thought he was all horned up to have an adult man-to-man discussion of GMO labels, Polyfarce Farm and CAFOs. Apparently not.

            Typical skulking activist troll — expose ’em to a little truth, try to extract a few pertinent facts about how they get paid and *presto* they disappear. Simply pick up their money, fold up their tent and split.

            Attention in the cheap seats: martingugino…has…left…the…building.

            No great loss.

          • Labeling for a production method is worthless. Voters have agreed on ballot issues.
            Polyface – don’t know what it is and it’s irrelevant to this conversation.

          • ” Your claim that intervention in the laboratory is as safe any other intervention is not an obvious truth.”

            It is obvious to anyone with common sense and education, Martin. GM in the lab that changes one gene is like keyhole surgery whereas organic preferred conventional breeding that potentially changes thousands of genes is like chainsaw surgery. This is why the only new food plant cultivars that have ever posed a hazard to health are conventionally bred, for instance the lenape potato. http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html

        • What claims need qualified? The only claims have been that these foods are no more risky than any other that we consume. So, to the degree that you consider corn produced from any other breeding method to be safe, corn from genetic modification is equally safe.

    • Oferpete’ssakes. We fiddle with DNA every time we eat anything, have sex, get vaccinated (oh, you are one of those anti-vaxxers, right?), breathe air, have babies.
      Your statement “…it is quite a simple matter to create lethal GMOs” is science fiction, buddy. Unless you are thinking of some terrorist activity that’s gonna take us all out, spreading seeds from the air that turn into flesh-eating plants …. What exactly are you thinking of? How much TV sci-fi do you watch, anyway? Tell me what you read for your bizarre misinformation about GE foods, and I will know exactly how you choose to form your opinions. What do you read, martinboy?

      • Yes I mean the fact that it is genetically modified does not thereby make it safe. It is possibly to make foods that are bad on purpose, and therefore possibly by accident. And the second fact is that where big money is involved, people can easily wonder if claims of safety should be taken at face value. When the makers of the foods refuse to label them, it raises suspicions, and I think rightly so.

        • Well it’s a good thing that “genetically modified” plants, animals & the foods derived from them go through extensive and lengthy testing and a rigorous, scientifically based review process, before they are allowed to be sold! So unless you have any factual points to make, with citations, that support your position on “genetic modification”, I suppose you’re done posting.

        • You can make bad crops using conventional methods as well, and it has happened in the past. So what is your point…
          The big money is in organic foods, like Duh, they are charging you 2x more for the same thing.

        • You should look up the amount of genetic variation there is in conventional foods. You would be amazed. And let us not forget mutation breeding and wide crosses between species. All of this is classified as “conventional” and yet I have never heard any of the “Oh my gosh, it is a GMO’ crowd even question the safety of these “conventional” foods. And yes, Monsanto actually sells seed that contains mutation-induced changes and wide crosses. Why don’t you jump on that?

        • “….possible to make foods that are bad on purpose…” What, some kind of deep devious terrorist plot? Who do you think is out there making foods that are “bad on purpose”? Love to hear your conspiracy paranoia theories.
          “Big money involved…” Yeah, you mean like the $70 Billion organic industry? Shouldn’t we take organic’s claims of safety at face value? Oooops, I just remembered Chipotle. Guess not.
          I’m highly suspicious of organic food, and their refusal to label them for manure as fertilizer, and for e.coli and salmonella contamination. That industry is just too damn big to trust.

          • I am only too well aware of your many rambling arguments. You argue that GE produced foods have not been “proven” to be safe. You allege that organic foods are safe and are better for the environment. You argue that labeling (only of genetically engineered ingredients, though, even though you don’t trust the gub’mint to do anything else, like safety and oversight) be mandated. You argue that there may be “big monied” interests that make “bad food on purpose.” I got it. You are a conspiracy theorist, and your mind is pretty made up. You got any other arguments? Happy to help.

          • Speed it up to what intended outcome Marty? Where do you think you are leading this cat and mouse game you are playing?

          • It’s called “Move the goalposts.” That’s the apparent end game. Obfuscate, confuse, deny, repost, challenge without citations, whine about labels. Funnnn!

    • Furthermore, there will never, ever be a way of assessing the long term effects of eating GMO if they are not properly labeled.
      Since the vast majority of GMO consumed by humans end up as processed “ingredients” in junk foods, we may never really know. Was it the GMO ingredient that caused your cancer or the other 25 chemicals in that microwave hot pocket??

      Yes, much better to just avoid them altogether and follow Michael Pollan’s advice. That is, if your goal is to ensure your physical body is as healthy as it can be.

        • Either GM exists as a unique and special thing or it does not.
          Which is it?
          If it exists, then I want to know if it’s in my food.

          What I don’t want to know is more opinions from humans about whether they think it’s okay or not to eat.

          • No, it not a unique or special thing. “GM” is a vague term that varies depending on where the speaker or writer has drawn the arbitrary line of what is “modified” or not.

          • I think the answer to him is: Yes. It’s “in” your food. All of your food. Organic, conventional, GE ingredients. Has been for centuries. Be afraid. Be very afraid. No label needed.

          • Also, “GM” is a process or method.

            Does it make a difference in the finished product? Not really — does it matter if your mechanic mounted your car’s tires on the wheels using the wet or dry method, as long as the tires hold air and balance OK?

            Does it matter if the carpenter who built your deck used a Dewalt pneumatic nail gun, a .22 cal Ramset nail gun, an Estwing 22 oz framing hammer or a Stanley 28 oz framing hammer?

            Why do you need to know this sort of trivia, what difference does it make?

          • FWAD, people who use a Dewalt pneumatic nail gun are suspected, and correlated, with being WWII spies. We have a right to know.

          • Yeah but it is the ones who prefer the Ramset .22 cal that spook me — all that gunpowder smell and empty casings, they get that crazy glint in their eyes sometimes. All the same, still not something one would need on a label affixed to the deck.

          • We don’t need a label for those Ramset .22 cals? Then how are we gonna track down those crazy-glinted corporate greedy buzzards?

          • Just follow the trail of empty .22 casings. The firing pin leaves distinctive marks, so you really can’t mix ’em up. Should lead you right to the source of the evil…Monsanto probably…if it’s really, really evil it must be, everything is.

          • Wow, FWAD – that is easier than I thought! Even easier than taking 49 seconds to google which foods are derived from GE ingredients!

          • Your analogy is feeble minded pseudointellectual crap. Just more smoke blown up our skirts.

            Maybe it matters if you went out of your way to drive over my dog every time you went to work. But show me where my dog is being driven over. And where do we stick the label warning me and my dog against you?

            I have a suggestion for where you can stick your GMO labels.

          • So scientists didn’t intentionally create Bt corn?
            They didn’t replicate the experiments?

            Only you and I would know if your dog was run over.
            My lawyers would claim that I have driven thousands of miles with no evidence of harm to dogs.
            They would claim that flatness is a more precise and efficient shape to be.
            I would produce documents signed by other drivers that would state that cars are safe and that dogs ride in them all the time.

          • Have you no self esteem? Now you are just babbling senselessly out of desperation. It would be more melodious to hear the bugles sound retreat without all the brainless prattle.

            Good afternoon goofball. No time for fools.

          • Self esteem: confidence in one’s own worth or abilities; self-respect.

            That’s an interesting question.
            If you mean confidence in my physical body, then yes I do. It’s working great right now and I am enjoying it immensely. I know that it will “fail” at some point but that just increases my gratitude for it’s “strength” right NOW.

            If you mean my thinking mind then yes to that also. I use it often to cut through the BS that surrounds me. I understand it’s worth (or rather, it understands its own worth), but more importantly, I understand it’s limitations as well.

            If you mean my true self which is timeless and formless then that’s just a silly question. Does God have self esteem?

          • Tell us what “the lawyers” have decided, then, and stop with the ditzy faux philosophizing. Do you have a concrete point to make or are you just blowing smoke up our skirts, as usual?

          • The lawyers have decided they are “a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention.”, otherwise known as a patent.

          • So now we have to label for everything that is patented?

            You are an obtuse ass. An embarrassment.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend