Print Friendly and PDF

Thousands of Genetically Modified Insects Set For Release

Anthony Gucciardi
by
September 6th, 2013
Updated 09/07/2013 at 12:40 pm
Pin It

genetically modified flies1 Thousands of Genetically Modified Insects Set For ReleaseJust when you thought genetically modified mosquitoes and mutated dinner entrees were the extent of biotech’s hunger to manipulate the genetic coding of the planet, scientists have now unleashed a plan to launch thousands of ‘frankenfly’ style insects into the wild in order to combat pests.

And just like we saw with the release of genetically modified mosquitoes, the altered insects are actually being pushed as a ‘green alternative’ to the use of chemicals. You see, British scientists claim that mutating the genetic code of the insects is actually a way of substituting for the use of chemical pesticides. Chemical pesticides used to lower the population of olive flies in Britain. The reality here, however, is that you are taking something damaging like chemical pesticides and replacing it with something far worse.

It’s like trading in your aging car for a bicycle, except in this case the bicycle also happens to include side effects like ‘may alter the genetic structure of the entire insect population’.

According to the Daily Mail, which dubs these insects as ‘frankenflies’ (and rightfully so), the frankenflies are meant to radically reduce the current generation of olive flies:

“The trial would involve releasing genetically modified male olive flies which would mate with the wild females with the result that all the female offspring would die at the larvae or maggot stage.”

In other words, they are actually trying to mutate the genetic code to sterilize and eliminate the population of flies. So what does this mean for animals that eat these flies as a part of their routine diet? Or how about the humans that then eat these animals, or maybe even somehow eat the flies themselves? The Daily Mail goes on to state:

“However critics fear the development could put human health at risk if people eat the flies or their larvae if they reach food products.”

It looks like this legitimate fear doesn’t seem to stop (or even affect) scientists who insist on unleashing the genetically modified frankenflies into the environment at large. Perhaps their suggestion is to not eat any animal that may have consumed the fly, any plant that may have came in contact with the fly, and to stay indoors to avoid any physical contact with anything the fly touched?

Let’s stop the mad scientist ideology of bloated biotech corporations and instead return to an age of reality and reason.

About Anthony Gucciardi:
1.thumbnail Thousands of Genetically Modified Insects Set For ReleaseGoogle Plus ProfileAnthony is the Editor of NaturalSociety whose work has been read by millions worldwide and is routinely featured on major alternative and mainstream news website alike, including the powerful Drudge Report, NaturalNews, Daily Mail, and many others. Anthony has appeared on programs like Russia Today (RT), Savage Nation, The Alex Jones Show, Coast to Coast AM, and many others. Anthony is also dedicated to aiding various non-profit organizations focused around health and rehabilitation as well as the creator of the independent political website Storyleak

From around the web:

  • leslie green

    We have no right (or ability) to play God. How arrogant and delusional to think that we can outsmart nature…our own lack of humility will bring about the destruction of our civilization… and we’re off to a good start and all in the name of greed, power, control and evil. More and more people are becoming aware of this and desperately trying to halt this beast (Monsanto et al)… much akin to the Little Dutch Boy” who tried to stop the dam from giving way by plugging the hole in the dyke with his finger.

  • http://lastshredsofsanity.com ShanLastShredsOfSanity

    I’m sorry, you all are getting your panties in a twist over an article from The Daily Mail, aka The Daily Fail, a British TABLOID. Seriously? When you can link to a story about this in a reputable publication or scientific journal, I might listen. Until then, this is just more “Elvis is alive” and “alien invasion orchestrated by the government” fantastical drivel.

  • NOT FOOLED FOR A MINUTE!!

    I just can’t wait to see what the unintended consequences of this are.

  • Tathata

    We are the ruin of this planet if not a meteor.

    • Tathata

      Les we realize and stop altering whats natural and just.

  • Michael Gusella

    This sounds a lot like the premise of the movie Mimic

  • issyco

    This is just one mnore example of the absudity to which different countries will go for the sake of killing something off or changing the dna of some species. There must be some sort of a stopgap to keep these things from happening until the long term ramifications of them and truly studied!!!

  • Sherlok

    “Perhaps their suggestion is to not eat any animal that may have consumed
    the fly, any plant that may have came in contact with the fly, and to
    stay indoors to avoid any physical contact with anything the fly
    touched?”

    “…may have came in contact with…”?

    The grammar makes me wonder how under-educated this author is. But, perhaps it’s just the new normal

  • Bevin Chu

    The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again, at two levels.

    One. The Frankenstein experiments are likely to yield unintended ecological consequences.

    Two. So-called IPR (“Intellectual Property Rights”) are phony “rights” that allegedly “encourage innovation.” In fact they violate genuine property rights, and provided the artificial, man-made incentive for these Frankenstein experiments.

    A real double-whammy.

  • kim b

    sounds like what they’re already doing to our population

  • Dan

    This article is a biased piece of crap. Adverse affects are based on your speculation alone and the entire tone is dismissive. People like you help set innovation back. Go find a new profession.

  • Mick Price

    “So what does this mean for animals that eat these flies as a part of their routine diet?”
    Almost certainly nothing. Such animals have, LIKE EVERY OTHER ANIMAL. Evolved to stop genetics from the things they put into their bodies affecting how they work. That’s why they haven’t died from parasites before they get a chance to eat one of these flies. For god’s sake if you aren’t prepared to do science at least do common sense.

    • Wilma Laura Wiggins

      You are what I like to call, wrong.

      • Mick Price

        Yes, that’s exactly right. I’m what _you like to call_ wrong. I’m not actually wrong. Animals eat animals with lots of different genes all the time. They don’t take those genes into themselves and express them. If they did the crocoduck would be a real thing, not something to laugh at creationists for.

    • http://bahaseedofdavid.blog.com/ Faye Brown

      I often said that if it hadn’t been for humanity’s God given DNA fighting this attempt to genocide humanity … mainstream would be extinct a long time ago … but that being so .. doesn’t’ excuse their ever sinful tries to do so …

  • Kev C

    This article may be light on links, citations, references et all, but the very fact that some idiot is prepared to jeapordise the natural balance of ecosystem function by introducing something that limits a food source to other species of greater importance, with unforseen consequences, should be sufficient evidence of possible harm for all and sundry to go and take a look for further information.
    It is not up to the author of this ‘lightweight’ piece to provide the readers with every nuance of the scientific research or the entire journal of scientific analysis regarding environmental impact assessments.
    However it is important to simply note that this henious act of environmental manipulation ‘is’ taking place.
    Now it is up to everyone else to do something about it. Like start looking for more information, reading up on the various possible outcomes and then taking issue with our paid for representatives to put a stop to this or maybe simply lobby themad scientists or their employers to stop this dangerous one way ticket experiment.
    It is not for so called scientists or their corporate shills to slag off the article or those who know better.
    Thank you for reading this. :-)

    • rongraves

      “It is not up to the author of this ‘lightweight’ piece to provide the
      readers with every nuance of the scientific research or the entire
      journal of scientific analysis regarding environmental impact
      assessments.”

      First rule for any science journalist (or a hack working in any other field for that matter), should always be cite your source(s). If you can’t, won’t, or think it’s not your job to do so, you are utterly wrong. Not to mention dangerously smug.

      • Casper

        Right. Because everything has to be proven first, complete with citations and sources, before you are allowed to think?

        “I think we should go to the moon”. “SOURCES!? Nobody has ever gone to the moon before, it’s never been done, we need sources! It’s an utterly ridiculous idea. How can you say such a thing or even think about it when you do not quote any sources!?”.

        Or “I think the world is round. Everyone says it’s flat, but I think it’s round”. “SOURCES!? Oh god we need sources. How can you say such a thing without quoting a source. I think you are mad. The scientists say the world is flat. Therefore it must be so!”.

        People demanding sources and scientific proof for everything are living in a bubble. The first step in any sort of progress is THOUGHT. Thinking. You do know what critical thinking is don’t you? You know, where you use your brain? Or do I need to quote you a scientific source for what thinking is too?

        And finally, where does it say this is a scientific journal? Where did you get that idea? Please provide sources.

      • april showers

        Uh, did you click through to the Daily Mail article?

  • Anth Biologist

    I am a qualified biologist, producer of biological insecticides, and once part of the Ag Chem industry (and by the way – the type of tech talked about in this article is a potential competitor of ours). I find it inspirational how we are cleverly manipulating the genetic code to find ways of improving the environment and human lives at the same time. Anyone that thinks the broad-scale use of chemical insecticides is better than a highly targeted genetic approach does not understand what genes are, or the unknown risks of chemicals in the environment. These modified fruit flys will have nil environmental impact, make our food safer, reduce environmental impacts in and around orchards, and in time do it at a lower cost. The only impact will be on the fruit flys, which are only present in damaging numbers because we are commercially producing large quantities of fruit. If you want to rail against corporate farming and industrialised agriculture, go right ahead, but please don’t degrade wonderful scientific advances due to your own bias and lack of biological understanding.

    • april showers

      Your hubris is astounding. You are standing on the shoulders of giants and have lost all sense of perspective.

      • Casper

        This is a scary scary glimpse into the world of “scientists” out there.

        These are the people who are supposed to be smart, responsible, objective, and analytical?

        And what’s even more scary is that there are thousands, tens of thousands more perhaps, like this person out there. Many of them even more delusional.

        Yeah, “science”. Blech. People like these should not be allowed within a thousand miles of any lab.

        • april showers

          Anth Biologist for dummies:

          “I find it inspirational how we are cleverly manipulating the genetic code to find ways of improving the environment and human lives at the same time.”

          Translation: We have studied very hard and now we know JUST enough about the genetic code to be really dangerous.

          “Anyone that thinks the broad-scale use of chemical insecticides is better than a highly targeted genetic approach does not understand what genes are, or the unknown risks of chemicals in the environment.”

          Translation: All those old poisonous pesticide patents are now expired and worthless! We can now just patent some insects to enhance our fortunes into the 21st century. Thanks to some expensive lobbying, we have never been held accountable for the consequences of our actions so we are pretty sure of the same result with this little experiment and any “unforeseeable” risks.

          “These modified fruit flys will have nil environmental impact, make our food safer, reduce environmental impacts in and around orchards, and in time do it at a lower cost.”

          Translation: Some of our paid staff have studied our methodologies and have assured us that everything will be OK, so, naturally, we have kept them on staff for future studies.

          “The only impact will be on the fruit flys, which are only present in damaging numbers because we are commercially producing large quantities of fruit.”

          Translation: Don’t even THINK about permaculture methodologies! We need to “update” the genetic environment anyway so we can salvage the failed commercial fruit production model from the 18th century! The rest of the environment will just have to catch up quickly to our “enhancements”

          “If you want to rail against corporate farming and industrialised agriculture, go right ahead, but please don’t degrade wonderful scientific advances due to your own bias and lack of biological understanding.”

          Translation: You may think of modern science as the enabler of the current failed agribusiness model, but we are NOT! We are simply misunderstood by all you who are too stupid to know about science and how we have made your life so much better that you should actually be worshipping the ground we walk on!

    • Kev C

      Oh my gawd! Are you for real? You need to come back down to earth PDQ. The rarefied air is making you light headed and dizzy with your own stupidity. Yes you may be all things scientific but you have zero understanding of the stupidity of your ideas when it comes to their long term impacts on ecosystems. Oh and I do ecosystem science so please don’t patronise me with your fancy lingo al la ‘high brow and mighty’. It doesn’t wash with me. I can see the wood despite the forest of GM trees.

  • celiayounger

    WE ARE CHANGING and destroying WHAT GOD CREATED … DURING MANY CENTURIES

  • celiayounger

    the damage they are doing will take centuries to fix… and comback to normal … if really it is possible to comeback to normal.

  • Patti Jo Roth-Edwards

    Thank you Anthony for working dillegently to keep us informed. I will pass this on to my email list and cyber communities. For those of you who desire more “science”. You have a computer and the Internet. Get busy and do your own research and share any thing you can verify.

  • Daniel Beck

    Are thereany questions left as to why there is GMO food crops……population control.

  • John Bell

    What’s next? Monsanto…Lord of the Flies? Ye gods! Is there no end to the pure, bloody stupidity and greed of individuals? That’s what it boils down to, in the long run.

  • Philip Owen

    once again a complete lack of any sources, this is just an opinion piece. If you want rational thinkers to take you seriously, guide us to the evidence and then let that evidence do the talking. I don’t know you, for all I know you have a side business selling aluminium foil hats! You do not appear to have any scientific credentials of your own so please help us find the truth for ourselves rather than expecting us to take you on faith

    • Casper

      You don’t need scientific evidence for these sort of things. Common sense and a knowledge of history of similar “god mode” efforts by humans is enough.

      Also you seem to fail to realize that the “scientific evidence” you so seek is a one off event: the evidence is when this is done for real and it either fails miserably or not.

      You cannot prove or disprove these things in a lab. The ecosystem of the earth is infinitely more complex than anyone can model anywhere in any lab or any computer anywhere.

      Are you willing to flip the coin on the ecosystem of the earth for your “scientific evidence”?

  • Bman

    Oh great, just what we need, some freaking do gooder scientist playing God. Then messing up the ecosystem with a mutant.

    Maybe we should reverse engineer the scientists?

    • M Schultz

      You mean GREED GETTER scientist not do gooder

  • David Heiens

    Could we promote the bird that eats the bug

  • Noah Slagle

    Even my high school AP-Environmental Science Class thinks this is a horrible idea. They can’t possibly think that they’re creating a closed system with a negative feedback? No, everything is so interconnected in the environment, that it will create a devastating ripple effect, embodied in an open system with a nonlinear response, spurred by positive feedback. There’s no way we will know the consequences of what we have wrought on ourselves until they are staring us in the face.

    • april showers

      “There’s no way we will know the consequences of what we have wrought on ourselves until they are staring us in the face.”

      Exactly. The real consequences will be so far removed from this action that the plausible deniability factor makes this a win for the patent holder.

  • profbarkingmad

    Speaking as a mad scientist, I quite like the idea of swarms of giant killer franken-hornets programmed to exterminate only the descendants of Norman King William – Muwahahaha!

  • Dr B

    Josh is right. You are an idiot, as are most of the posters who have know idea what they are talking about. Even from the limited data you provide, the modified flies will not produce any viable offspring. This will simply limit fly reproduction in a single generation, nothing more. Since your tiny brain clearly is incapable of noticing the obvious, if you are protesting this, then you should be protesting every new breeding effort for any crop or animal. How can you know those are “safe?” You stupid hypocrite.

    • bobinthewoods

      Dr. B…..perhaps your vast brain could detect the difference between “know” and “no”. Perhaps you could grasp the concept as well that genetic manipulation is NOT the same as natural selection or cross-breeding? The name-calling? Nice touch.

    • Kev C

      May I introduce you to a very basic principle of Genetic Modification? Its called horizontal gene transfer. It happens. Even in nature. But in nature it only survives if all the right conditions exist, have been met or are permitted under mother natures laws of natural selection.
      In science none of these considerations are…….well……ever considered. Only the bottom line is given the once or twice over.
      As for these damned flies not breeding. That my friend is not the point. Its your worse nightmare. You see the gene material remains intact. It remains active and it very nicely inserts itself into the DNA of the host that consumes it. And there is increasing evidence that suggest that this can happen with secondary consumers. So a cow eats a crop of plants which have been genetically modified. Then we eat the cow. By doing so we ingest the modification of the crop as secondary consumers.
      The same goes for flies. Birds eat them. We eat birds in the form of chickens, turkeys, grouse, pheasants…….need I go on?
      Now do as has been suggested by others to others. Go learn some science.

      • JdL

        Its your worse nightmare.

        No, my worst nightmare is people like you who can’t even master basic English (try looking up the difference between “its” and “it’s” some time, if it’s not too much of a bother) trying to make learned pronouncements on biology. Dr B and Josh are right, and the rest of you, starting with Gucciardi, are a bunch of ignorant fear-mongers.

        Go learn some science.

        Advice I see that you are determined to avoid at all costs if it’s applied to yourself.

        • Magnanomi

          Amen!

      • Mick Price

        ” It remains active and it very nicely inserts itself into the DNA of the host that consumes it.”
        I find that very hard to believe. Animals evolved for billions of years to STOP that happening. We don’t turn into fish when we eat fish. Think about it, any animal that routinely absorbs genes from it’s food source would be unable to keep useful genes.

        • april showers

          Read “Deep Nutrition”

          • Mick Price

            No. Point out a flaw in my argument. Don’t expect me to read an entire book because you don’t understand basic biology.

            • april showers

              Your argument: ” We don’t turn into fish when we eat fish.”

              The poster NEVER said that. Argumentum ad absurdum.

              Perhaps you have been taught that diet cannot change your genes or your genetics, however, diet can influence how your genes will express various proteins. You can google epigenetics for a brief explanation, but the poster was actually talking about horizontal gene transfer, which you can certainly also google..

              • Mick Price

                ” Animals evolved for billions of years to STOP that happening.”
                That’s my argument. Refute it.

                • april showers

                  What are you saying? That animals that ate fish used to turn into fish but don’t anymore because of evolution? No species have ever died out because they couldn’t adapt to environmental changes?

                • Magnanomi

                  I appreciate the logic of your comments. Thanks

                • Mick Price

                  “Animals evolved for billions of years to STOP that (absorbing genes from food) happening. Think about it, any animal that routinely absorbs genes from it’s food source would be unable to keep useful genes.”
                  It’s not that hard to figure out. Organisms have been fighting invading organisms for billions of years.

                • Magnanomi

                  We’re not talking about evolution, we are talking about GMO (genetically Modified Oganisms) Also, if you truely believe in evolution, I can see why your perspective on science is so awry.
                  But still, again, we are talking about screwing around with a species, not species evolving to keep something like GMOs from having an effect on further evolution. I believe in the fixative of species with adaption. We have adapted, over time not, evolved.

                • Magnanomi

                  You’re argument refutes itself. Evolution doesn’t STOP anything from happening, it enables it to change … that’s what evolution is. At least, if you believe in evolution … I don’t.

              • Mick Price

                ” But in nature it only survives if all the right conditions exist, have been met or are permitted under mother natures laws of natural selection.”
                Which is REALLY REALLY rare. Which is why evolution selected against it happening and made it harder for it to happen. Genes that make an organism sterile obviously aren’t going to spread that well.

  • Mitchell Brown

    Humans do not have the knowledge of God and yet they insist on tampering with His creation. How pathetic…………..

  • Shawn May

    Josh I hope u eat one of tghese in your GMO CORN and see you die a slow death from men trying to be GOD

  • Josh

    How about citing the people who actually released them instead of another journalist who probably doesn’t know science any better than you. This is poorly written, and it is not informative–it’s just intended to scare. What actual genes have been modified? Do you even know? Genes are modified in various organisms all the time without harm to people or the ecosystem. Cite actual peer-reviewed published articles, and let people read and draw their own conclusion. This is rubbish.

    • Brian Merlin

      I think that theory of gene manipulation not being harmful is dependent who you ask… Round up super weeds, dead bees, all kinds of problems are possibly linked to GMOs and to assume playing God with genetic code is safe is kind of sketchy. We could easily invent the wrong kinds of adaptions that negatively impact us indirectly…how many of our problems and diseases are from all these chemicals we consume?

      • Dana

        Not to mention that gene-splicing (which is GMO) is tinkering with DNA, and if in particular it is tinkering with coding DNA, and I can’t see any reason it ever wouldn’t be, coding DNA makes proteins. Proteins don’t just build lean tissue in organisms (including us). They are also the locks and keys for God knows how many processes in the body. And we don’t understand enough about this crap that we should be feeling safe tinkering with it. We are just NOW understanding that eating the wrong proteins can make you sick even if you don’t have a classical allergy. GMOs create proteins that haven’t happened before in evolution. Nothing has had the chance to adapt to them. We are looking at extinction in the long run if we don’t quit playing around with this. Just go ahead and assume that, because NO ONE who develops things like this EVER takes the long view. EVER.

      • Dana

        And yes, I know we’d go extinct eventually anyway, but why make it happen sooner if we don’t have to?

    • Dana

      I hope you are not talking about cross-breeding, because I keep hearing that argument and it’s completely dishonest and one hell of a thing for a person to say who accuses others of being unscientific. If that *is* what you mean, go learn the difference between cross-breeding and GMO and then come back and talk with the grownups.

      Gene-splicing tech has only been around since, what, the 80s? And most of it til the late 90s was in labs and used to make medicines–human insulin, for example. This bit of putting it out into the environment is relatively new and we haven’t been doing it for long enough to really be able to say what the long-term effects will be. And frankly, agriculture already damages the global climate. We’re already in trouble because of agriculture. And not even from the chemicals–though, if you want to get right down to it, thanks to things like Roundup-Ready crops, we’re using MORE chemicals than before. So much for *that* claim. But let’s crank up agriculture to 11 and do even worse damage now, with the planet already heating up. What a brilliant idea.

      • Jordan Breon

        I get the gist of your post, but to be honest, there is hope.

        I am a farmer. A small farmer, to be exact. I have anywhere from 25-45 head depending on time of year and breeding results. Prior to 2007 or thereabouts, it was impossible to make money the way I farm. You had to have a factory operation, with 30 month butchering deadlines, to make money. Getting an Angus steer from birth to 1300-1500 pounds in 30 months was only possible with BGH injections, feeding proteins such as ground chicken, or grain that was a GMO. My way, which is no grain whatsoever (I feed pasture during the half of year I can, and green bale non-modified alfalfa/canary grass as well as feeding green-cut non-modified sorghum) is more labor and cost intensive. I do not spray my crops and use natural methods of pst control i.e. using ‘bait’ for predator insects that like to eat insects that eat my crops.

        This process means it takes me 36 months, minimum, to raise a beef steer to 1300 pounds. Selling my beef at sale barns to large corporations meant I would have to take 20-30 cents less a pound because they didn’t like the aged beef, I had to work second jobs and farm for a hobby – I love my farm too much to quit.

        However, now people are waking up to what factory farms are like, the problems GMOs give, and the sickening effects of pumping our food up with chemicals. I’ve since bypassed the whole intermediary sale barns and sell my animals straight to consumers. Many city folks interested in my beef will come to my farm and see the conditions for themselves. It costs much more than store beef, but you know what you’re getting. I’ve since been able to focus primarily on my farm because of this transformation.

        I do worry about the loss of the honeybee, and these other attempts at playing God (I always remember Ian Malcolm’s line in Jurassic Park: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.) but I think the people are waking up to this and will continue to refuse to eat GMO garbage and chemically/genetically modified food.

        • april showers

          Michael Crichton R.I.P.

          • Jordan Breon

            I’m not sure I follow the reference.

            • april showers

              Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park which is a story about a scientist who uses his acquired knowledge of thousands of years of study of nature to make money just because he can without fully thinking through the potential consequences. It is the modern day “Frankenstein”, He was a great writer and now he has passed on.

    • Beatriz Moisset

      I agree with Josh. This article is not based on scientific information. It provides no evidence of anything. Doesn’t even show any understanding of the issue. The fly used in the illustration has nothing to do with the olive fly. Too much ignorance!

    • Bella

      Are you for REAL??? You obviously don’t know one whit of science. Messing with ANY species goes right down (and up) the line in the ecosystem. Perhaps you never took science in school? Or perhaps, if you did, you took the dumbed down version that makes Dr Frankensteins who invent stuff like this look like heroes! It doesn’t MATTER who released them! Look what MONSANTO has released. But then, you probably love their stuff too, from how your post sounds!

      There are PLENTY of species I would love to get rid of. But they all feed the chains in the ecosystems.

      Additionally, journalists play an important role in our society, when they are allowed to report truth and not the status quo. THEY are the only ones who can attempt to let people know they are being experimented on by Frankenscientists.

      And probably you REALLY think that the august scientists that came up with this invention have experimented extensively on all the organisms that will eat these creatures up the ecosystem? WRONG! They vaccinate newborns with vaccines that are untested on newborns (oh, because it would be unethical to TEST stuff on newborns, now wouldn’t it)! You need to seriously learn some science. Unless you’re a shill, in which case you don’t care.

  • Jing Yagunazie

    who are these scientist. What corporation do they work for. And who is financing them?

  • AtlantaGIRL

    RELEASE at 1600 and let’s see how long this is allowed…or better yet, on the floor of the SENATE!!! or Dept. of Agriculture or at HQ of the FDA…..or Monsanto HQ???

  • WordAndReason

    Sowing the seeds that insure the future “necessity” of their creators, should this experiment go awry. “Hey! Don’t worry. We conveniently engineered the chemical weapon to neutralize any unforeseen problems. Oops! Sorry for the crop or bug or critter extinction as a result of our heartfelt attempt. Good thing we ignored all the screaming about playing around with nature’s unconsidered complexity. Otherwise we wouldn’t have these genetically modified things to replace the natural things we lost.”

  • Slimane Bensassi Nour

    very annoying !!

  • doug

    Thanks so much Anthony this is truly terrible news