Whatever is causing the issue was introduced after the male and female cell lines were seperated from Kendall, so they should be unique transgenic insertions in each group of clones.

There's no crossing between Castor and Leda genomes, they're seperate cell lines from Kendall.

I don't think so; the Leda's transgenics had to do with their fertility (this is why Sarah and Helena are special) and the Castors had something to do with their killer wangs.

I was keeping track of the genetics as the details were being revealed but they jumped the science shark a few seasons back. It's just technomagic now.

The most jarring part of the episode for me was P.T. revealing to Cosima that Delphine was spying one her for him, and doing it just a few hours into the operation with absolutlely no pay-off other than spite. Why bother?

It was Sarah that put the pencil in Rachel's eye.

I'm pretty sure we'll find out Mud and Janis (Yannis?) were siblings, and given Mud's preferential access tot he Big House she's probably linked in some significant way.

Like anxiously pacing back and forth in front of the refrigerator?

"Sooo, I fucked your girlfriend…"

That's how relative toxicity is measured. There's no listed carcinogenic or mutagenic properties for glyphosate. There are mutagenic properties for salt though, apparently.

Still better than Sigourney Weaver's pipette skills in Avatar though.

I just looked up the MSDS info; LD50 (dosage at which half the rats tested died) for glyphosate is listed as > 5000mg/kg. It's 3000mg/kg for sodium chloride.

Why did California make a decision different than the EPA or FDA? I doubt they have more evidence. It's sometimes futile to debate politics with science.

Something like yield is a multigenic trait with strong environmental interactions which lacks any 'magic bullet' solution, at least at present. The biggest gains in yield have come from hybrid breeding, which isn't a GMO-based method.

Agreed. I don't think you can ever 'prove' something is safe, anymore than you can prove a negative in any other circumstance. See John Oliver's piece on vaccines for a great explanation of that. But by comparison to other substances I believe (going from my memory of the MSDS) glyphosate is about as toxic as table…

Glyphosate is far from a 'proven' carcinogen, especially at the dosages present in food (which is miniscule). The WHO are primarily a political organisation, not a scientific one. Don't discount the role of trade negotiations in their motives.
Also, glyphosate is used on non-GMO crops too, both as pre-seed weed control…

That's another huge misconception; well over 90% of farms are run by families. The big agro companies have no interest in actual production, that's a low-profit, high-risk venture. They either sell inputs (seed, fertilizer, chemicals) or buy the products of farming (huge multinational grain handlers) which are the…

They're not engineered for yeild, though. The only GMO traits currently in crops are herbicide tolerences. The same companies breed varieties for different regions of the world using mostly the same germplasm too, so you'd expect yields to mostly keep pace. What isn't emphasised enough is the safety level between…

That's a valid point (and certainly one I agree with) but consumers may wish to avoid GMO foods based on more than just safety concerns. It doesn't necessarily need to be an actual label in the product but the information should be available if you choose to look for it.

Most people's education in agriculture ends with singing "Old MacDonald". For something that's so fundamental to the establishment and maintenance of civilization it's sorely under-represented in school curriculums.