I appreciate you providing such an overwhelming array of evidence to support your position. You've actually provided all the extant evidence of GM foods being harmful i.e. none.

It was in jest, and in response to your insulting assertion that I should read a book.

Actually, there is a mention of "uncertainty about the effects". It's still not an explicit call for more science, and is still wrong.

Neither of those contain any evidence that GM crops are harmful and the ucsf article explicitly points out that many studies have shown there is no evidence of harm. The rise in resistance is irritating but inevitable, and still isn't evidence that GMOs are harmful. Also worth pointing out that while herbicide use is…

There's apparently a strong luddite tendency among people that's easily exploited by people desperate for page clicks and newspaper purchases.

If I add a gene to rice that makes it produce more Vitamin A, that damages soil and pollinators how?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3007573.stm

I'm not about to defend corporate business practices. Monsanto is run by bastards but that doesn't make GM organisms bad for you.

There's been plenty of adequate gauging. Monsanto aren't actually the only people who test the safety of GM foods.

At no point in the article did they say we needed more independent studies. We have loads already and they've all come back clear.

Incorrect. There is no evidence of any harm to human health from any of the GM products currently being grown and consumed. Feel free to provide some evidence for this looming public health crisis.

The most likely candidate for colony collapse disorder is a pesticide. Bee colonies are also shrinking in the EU which doesn't grow GM crops, or at least not on the scales of the USA. I've read plenty of books. Try reading one that isn't written on hemp?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Individual_studies

Bollocks to your continued shitty science writing Jezebel. GM food is no more dangerous than "conventionally" bred food. They have been gauged more than adequately: there is NO danger. At all.

...Only 5? Better than nothing I suppose.

"It's an interesting take, and one that would be particularly attractive to those in the tech world who 1) are tired of Facebook's dominance; and 2) haven't read Sandberg's book. But it also robs Sandberg of any agency in its implication that she's just some tool of the patriarchy's grander, Mr. Burns-esque scheme to…

Hmm. I was kind of hoping they'd be run of the mill "reverse racism reverse racism" fools but this is some full on KKK shit.

Christianity is a body of opinions. Being black or (ethnically) Jewish isn't. It's not the same.

Real testimonials? I kind of hope not.

Is he a Catholic? I thought she was but I thought he was irreligious.