HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Regulators Discover an OC...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:24 AM

Regulators Discover an OCCULT & harmful Viral Gene In Commercial GMO Crops

This is deeply distressing...

Published (January 21st) in Independent Science News:

Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene In Commercial GMO Crops
by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson

Synopsis: A scientific paper published in late 2012 shows that US and EU GMO regulators have for many years been inadvertently approving transgenic events containing an unsuspected viral gene...

...The authors of the paper, working for the European Food Safety Authority, concluded that functions of Gene VI were potential sources of harmful consequences.

They further concluded that, if expressed, the fragments of Gene VI are substantial enough for them to be functional.

This discovery has multiple ramifications for biotechnology. Foremost, there is the immediate question of GMO safety and whether the 54 events should be recalled, but secondly, the failure implicates regulators and the industry in a circle of mutual incompetence and complacency.

The discovery also strengthens the argument for GMO labeling: if regulators and industry cannnot protect the public then why should they not be allowed to protect themselves?

URL: http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

58 replies, 3265 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply Regulators Discover an OCCULT & harmful Viral Gene In Commercial GMO Crops (Original post)
Berlum Jan 2013 OP
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 #1
Berlum Jan 2013 #2
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #3
Berlum Jan 2013 #4
LineLineLineReply .
Berlum Jan 2013 #7
Recursion Jan 2013 #48
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #49
nc4bo Jan 2013 #5
Berlum Jan 2013 #6
csziggy Jan 2013 #9
AdHocSolver Jan 2013 #8
randome Jan 2013 #10
Berlum Jan 2013 #11
randome Jan 2013 #12
Berlum Jan 2013 #13
Berlum Jan 2013 #14
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #42
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #15
Berlum Jan 2013 #16
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #17
Berlum Jan 2013 #18
Berlum Jan 2013 #19
blazeKing Jan 2013 #20
Berlum Jan 2013 #22
flobee1 Jan 2013 #57
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #41
Fight2Win Jan 2013 #21
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #23
Berlum Jan 2013 #24
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #25
marions ghost Jan 2013 #27
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #29
marions ghost Jan 2013 #32
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #40
Berlum Jan 2013 #43
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #46
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #51
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #56
wisechoice Jan 2013 #34
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #39
randome Jan 2013 #28
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #38
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #47
wisechoice Jan 2013 #50
patrice Jan 2013 #26
Duer 157099 Jan 2013 #30
patrice Jan 2013 #31
Speck Tater Jan 2013 #33
patrice Jan 2013 #36
Speck Tater Jan 2013 #35
patrice Jan 2013 #37
Berlum Jan 2013 #44
patrice Jan 2013 #45
mike_c Jan 2013 #52
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #53
wisechoice Jan 2013 #54
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #55
wisechoice Jan 2013 #58

Response to Berlum (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:28 AM

1. "inadvertently" ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:48 AM

2. Ummm hmmmmm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:49 AM

3. occult? i don't see that word in the original article.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:12 AM

4. It's hidden

You can't see it. It's occulted. But trust me, it's there and not there. It's occulted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:41 AM

7. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:50 PM

48. Has a specific meaning in biology. Non-phenotypic.

A gene with no obvious expression in the organism's form or behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:59 PM

49. i know. i didn't ask what the word meant, i said it wasn't in the article. nor is the concept

 

discussed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:16 AM

5. The phrase, "We are what we eat" immediately comes to mind....

I wonder what a human being infected with cauliflower mosaic virus would look like or how would it affect our bodies?

Or how about verticillium wilt or any number of blights?

I'm not going to pretend I understand every single word, sentence or paragraph in that article but I definitely think I've got the gist of where its going and I don't like it one bit and neither should any one else.

Just one more thought; we/our government allowed these jackasses to experimentally muck with our food supply, for pure profit. What could possibly go wrong?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nc4bo (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:30 AM

6. "You rang?" - Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Dude

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nc4bo (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:24 PM

9. No idea but here is what happens when cactus mixes with Time Lord

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:20 PM

8. GMO crops: Playing Russian roulette with life on planet Earth for profit for a few.

K and R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:25 PM

10. "...concluded that functions of Gene VI were potential sources of harmful consequences."

Congratulations to the author for the most non-specific fire drill of the day!

Just about everything in the Universe is a 'potential source of harmful consequences'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:33 PM

11. But not everything in universe is occult crapola viral foodlike substance

as everyone must attest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:36 PM

12. Everything we eat is modified by human beings.

Calling something 'occult' and 'crapola' only carries weight if you can point to something specific. Saying that it's artificial and therefore axiomatically 'evil' will not gain much traction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:55 PM

13. You want specifics of OCCULT CRAPOLA FOODLIKE SUBSTANCE? OK

Read closely:

When a scientific study was published in September last year showing that a genetically modified maize and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide it is designed to be grown with damaged the health of rats, Corinne Lepage MEP called it "a bomb".

The study, by Prof Gilles-Eric Sťralini's team at the University of Caen, France, was the first to test the effects of eating a GM food and its associated pesticide over the animals' lifetime of two years.

The study found that GM maize and Roundup caused severe organ damage and increased tumour rates, as well as earlier death....

HUGE STINKING TANTRUM BY "Scientists" immediately thereafter gets MASSIVE corporate media play.

"...But all was not as it seemed. Many of the critics were subsequently exposed as having commercial or career interests in GM technology Ė interests that went undisclosed in media articles that quoted them.

The Science Media Centre itself has taken funding from GM and agrochemical companies.

Government agencies that condemned the study, such as the EFSA, had been involved in GM crop approvals and so were simply defending their own decisions.


Read more: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2937/citizens-were-lied-to-over-gm-study#ixzz2IjCiUj00

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 02:26 PM

14. Michael Pollan on Crappy Mutant Foodlike Substances

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:48 PM

42. see #41

documented source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 02:29 PM

15. If you have to rely on tricking people who don't know what "OCCULT" means...

then you don't have much of a message.

And the all caps is, indeed, proof of intention to highlight an alarming sounding word. (Most would find the word "harmful" in the headline of more interest than hidden or obscured)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 02:38 PM

16. You don't know what occult means?

Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Let me help you out. It means hidden.

The TRICK is "hidden" genetically mutant crapola in the food. You know, occulted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:21 PM

17. A lot of people have been trying to warn US consumers about this for many years but

 

they were blown off as conspiracy theorists. Good to see main stream media's finally been taking an interest in it the last couple of years. GMO foods are banned many other places around the world and with good reason. If corporations want to sell poison garbage to the American people, I could care less, it's the "American way" but I do feel they shouldn't be allowed to market their trash as organic. It should be labeled GMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:28 PM

18. The Daily Mail just picked up the story. New doubts on GMO Safety. "Fatal Flaws" in regulation

USA Corporate Media, Inc. (R): "z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z"

Uncovered, the 'toxic' gene hiding in GM crops:
Revelation throws new doubt over safety of foods

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266143/Uncovered-toxic-gene-hiding-GM-crops-Revelation-throws-new-doubt-safety-foods.html#ixzz2IjpH6qmo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:51 AM

19. European Union puts Freeze on GM crops

What do the Europeans know that US Corporate Media, Inc. isn't telling Americans?

"The European Commission has decided to freeze the approval process for genetically modified food crops through the end of its mandate next year..."

http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/EU_freezes_approval_of_GM_crops_to_2014_999.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:24 AM

20. I've heard of no issues with chickens or cows fed GM corn

 

If there were problems it would likely show up in them first. I know there are studies on rats that show liver and reproductive damage. Personally, I am against GMO until long term independent studies show they are safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blazeKing (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:05 AM

22. No problems with livestock fed GM grains?

Just because you have not heard of it, does not mean it's not happening. Check out the work of Don Huber.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:03 PM

57. the problem is cows eat grass

not corn-they cannot digest it properly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blazeKing (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:46 PM

41. the cattle network dot com are notorious radicals, but...

Rosman said he used hybrids in the past and started to use GMO corn in feed in 1997 without any trouble, but things changed in 2000 when he switched to a different companyís genetics with a new genetically modified trait.

Starting in 2000, most of Rosmanís animal were unable to reproduce with a low sperm count in males and females showing false pregnancies. The pigs that were reproducing had smaller litters. By adjusting the type of corn used, Rosman concluded the corn with the genetically modified trait he started using in 2000 was causing the problem. Continued losses and his shrinking herd forced him to close his farm two years later.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/181872191.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:56 AM

21. kick

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:13 AM

23. Pitchforks and Torches.. we need Pitchforks and Torches!!!

Pitchforks to uproot the plants and torches to burn them.






^snip from link in OP^



Is There a Direct Human Toxicity Issue?

When Gene VI is intentionally expressed in transgenic plants, it causes them to become chlorotic (yellow), to have growth deformities, and to have reduced fertility in a dose-dependent manner (Ziljstra et al 1996). Plants expressing Gene VI also show gene expression abnormalities. These results indicate that, not unexpectedly given its known functions, the protein produced by Gene VI is functioning as a toxin and is harmful to plants (Takahashi et al 1989). Since the known targets of Gene VI activity (ribosomes and gene silencing) are also found in human cells, a reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.



So, at this point we have nothing but unfounded speculation.


If you google the authors and check out their Bioscience resource project it would appear that these people are profiting from scaring people.

Hey, maybe they are right (although I am very sceptically) but right now it looks like profiteering by means of fear.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:25 PM

24. No. We need more people who have respect for land and life.

And a more careful & deliberate science that is not frantically driven by narrow-minded profit-seeking corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:41 PM

25. GMOs tend to use less land and water

and feed people who otherwise would not be fed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:49 PM

27. let's find a better way

There really isn't a GOOD argument for these GMO foods. The American public are the primary guinea pigs. It would be wise to avoid them as much as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:52 PM

29. Tell that to starving people. They are dying NOW!

There is no good argument against GMO foods. There is no proof of any of these fantastic charges.

Starvation is real and is going on now.


Also, it is not just Americans who eat this. The whole world uses GMO crops now. Open your eyes just a little, will you please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:00 PM

32. Uh...the whole world does not eat them by choice

Those who are eating them have NO idea of the dangers.

Open your eyes to the dangers and risks.

GMO foods are NOT the answer to starvation in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:43 PM

40. get a new script please, that BS is 15 years old

Moral Blackmail
Many opponents argue that biotech companies are using world hunger as a form of "moral blackmail" to sell GMOs. Consumers feel they have to accept biotechnology or else they feel guilty about standing in the way of progress to help stop world hunger (Knee, 2000). The companies make themselves out to be the saviors of hungry people throughout the world, but do not actually use their expertise to help developing nations because they have no profit incentive.
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring01/denlinger/problems.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:58 PM

43. +1

+1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:47 PM

46. then present some evidence that GMOs are harmful

If you are incapable of doing so then I suggest you accept that GMOs do more good than harm.


I agree that the companies are out to make profits. I would never suggest otherwise. That does not change the fact that more food can be produced on the same land with the same resources using GMO crops than non altered crops.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:45 PM

51. try posts #48, #76, #69, #91, #99, #43...

and if you want to get into this new 'golden rice' gmo crap that you have to eat 2.2 pounds of to get the same vitamin A as 1 mango, but it is also supposed to 'save the world', i have some thoughts on that, also.

sorry, got the threads mixed up there, those posts, from this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022243841

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:37 PM

56. also a bunch of links here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2248150

or you could do your own checking. try googling 'gmo yield improvement'

A study from the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that genetically engineered crops do not produce larger harvests. Crop yield increases in recent years have almost entirely been due to improved farming or traditional plant breeding, despite more than 3,000 field trials of GM crops.

from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, those legendary commies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:08 PM

34. Tell that to suicide belt in India

VANDANA SHIVA: (interviewed in 2006) Indian farmers have never committed suicide on a large scale. Itís something totally new. Itís linked to the last decade of globalization, trade liberalization under a corporate-driven economy. The seed sector was liberalized to allow corporations like Cargill and Monsanto to sell unregulated, untested seed. They began with hybrids, which canít be saved, and moved on to genetically engineered Bt cotton.
The cotton belt is where the suicides are taking place on a very, very large scale. It is the suicide belt of India. And the high cost of seed is linked to high cost of chemicals, because these seeds need chemicals. In addition, these costly seeds need to be bought every year, because their very design is to make seeds nonrenewable, seed that isnít renewable by its very nature, but whether itís through patenting systems, intellectual property rights or technologically through hybridization, nonrenewable seed is being sold to farmers so they must buy every year.



Continue reading at NowPublic.com: The Farmer Suicide Belt of India | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/farmer-suicide-belt-india#ixzz2Ip6epVXO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:42 PM

39. really? you just know that off the top of your head?

try posting a link or fact, perhaps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:50 PM

28. We passed that point a LONG time ago.

Once we entered the industrial revolution. But I agree, we need less destructive ways to manage our insatiable appetite for change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:41 PM

38. you seem to have missed the dot org part completely

which means non profit.

they guy that wrote the article has a master's in genetics AND virology. and gets his MONEY by presenting at scientific conferences.

what do you 'know', precisely?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #38)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:50 PM

47. the people who run non profits pay themselves a salary

to assume that they are not making any money is foolish


What I know is that there is no hard evidence for any of these accusations. Once there is some then I will change my opinion. Until there is some my opinion stands. GMOs are doing more good than harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:28 PM

50. And that is a opinion and not a fact

There is neither hard evidence that GMOs are good. This is real massive live experiment going on and people refuse to label GMOs because we can then document the result of this experiment. Even wonder why they refuse to label GMOs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:49 PM

26. we are lab rats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:54 PM

30. Here's what I don't understand

There are millions of laboratory rodents that are being fed daily with... what? Non-GMO rodent chow? Does such a thing even exist? If virtually all the corn produced today is GMO, then wouldn't their regular chow be derived from GMO corn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:55 PM

31. What does "occult" mean in this context, please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:06 PM

33. "occult" simply means "hidden" in every technical context.

 

To the common person it means hidden, also, but with supernatural overtones not present in technical and scientific contexts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:34 PM

36. I wasn't thinking supernatural. So, they infer that something's there, but none of their technical

processes and procedures can address it? They have no way of "seeing" it deductively?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:10 PM

35. Read "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood.

 

For a grim (fictional) picture of our genetically altered, globally warming future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:36 PM

37. Does the article suggest hypothetical effects upon our immune systems? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:49 PM

44. It suggests that GMOs may be doing all kinds of damage

...but since almost all the 'science' that has been done has been skewed by corporate funding or other dubious means, we have missed some huge issues and we need real, impartial science to know the truth about GMOs.

Despite this, corporations continue to spew out massive quantities of GMO SEEDS and foods in an occult (unlabeled) manner, thereby violating the rights of every human being to know what they are eating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:05 PM

45. One of THE worst things going down right now. :-(((((((((((((

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:49 PM

52. oh for pete's sake....

This is embarrassing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:57 PM

53. I don't know how a person can trust a company that sues farmers over cross pollination.

Or the same company fighting putting GMO labels on their food stuff products. If these foods are just as good and there are no problems they should be happy to label them GMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:59 PM

54. I never got a answer why they refuse to label GMOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisechoice (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:02 PM

55. Well I think we both know the answer to that.

But, Monsanto et al aren't going to give that reason. Many people won't knowingly put food in their bodies that could cause cancer cells to grow faster or cause abnormalities in their cell linings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:58 PM

58. defenders of Monsonto disappear

whenever I ask this question. THey know the answer too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread