I mixed it up with non Monsanto experiments with pig genes and oranges.

It was Monsanto acquired Calgene that utilized the antifreeze genes of a fish with the tomato. It was yanked from the market after being a failure but the technology kept being utilized and the process and studies done less transparent. The Calgene days were a simpler time and you can still comb through the FDA memos and see those gavage studies on rats and all the lesions in their stomachs. Makes you wonder why the hell it was ever approved.

There’s a difference between cross breeding and tinkering with genes. The former can be a problem when overdone (see jacked up gluten in wheat) but the latter is even more hazardous at the genetic level. Ask the father of molecular biology.

I’m not anti-science I’ve studied it for years but we also should exercise some common sense and discernment. We’ve been studying viruses for years but ´gain of function research’ was banned in this country for a reason. Nevertheless, our brilliant scientific minds continued to fund it in places like Wuhan and we saw how that went.

I prefer a precautionary principle. It’s one of the things the European Union got right. Non-GMO food tastes and smells better, is sustainable and self sufficient, and less taxing on body particularly the gastrointestinal system.

I also don’t trust a mega agrochemical company with undue influence in big government that has shown to commit great harm with little to no consequences. When you know how the FDA works or doesn’t work, you’d be more cynical of what’s in the American soil and food supply.

My skepticism of GMO does not come from lefty documentaries but way back to oil eating bacteria that failed spectacularly on a clean up job.