Fake Banner
    The Frankenfood Paradox
    By Kevin M. Folta | June 27th 2012 09:32 PM | 22 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    More Articles
    All Articles
    About Kevin M.

    I'm proud to be a public scientist at a land-grant university with great interests in public education. I completed a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology...

    View Kevin M.'s Profile
    On Sunday there was considerable confusion about the alleged "GMO" grass that killed cattle.  Turns out it was not GMO grass at all, but a hybrid.  I received many inquiries about the difference between a GMO and a hybrid, as the latter sounded truly freaky and much more invasive than any frankenfood.

    While hybrids are not the technology we usually think of with the terms genetic modification or genetic engineering, it is just that-- humans manipulating plants by modifying the genes of an organism toward crop improvement. No lab needed, just cross two sexually compatible plants that are different! The next generation has literally tens of thousands of new gene variants, and maybe new genes, that are different from the parents.

    So let's scrap the pedestrian term GMOs and work with something more precise: transgenic.  This means that the plants contain a gene inserted using recombinant DNA technology.

    To clarify the issue on Sunday I slammed a table together that contrasted transgenic technology against other methods of plant improvement.  A look at the table reveals that all are methods of genetic modification, and everything we eat is truly a genetically modified organism, especially when compared to wild, ancient antecedents.

    Since then, I've enjoyed feedback from colleagues and readers, and did a little thinking and googling.  Here is the new and improved table: 

    methods used for 20,000 years to modify genes
    Click on it for the larger version. Take a look at the methods used to improve plants by manipulating their genes. Some of these methods have been in place for 20,000 years.


    Particularly, please compare:

    1.  How many genes are transferred.
    2.  If we know where transferred or affected genes are located
    3.  If we know what transferred or affected genes do
    4   If genes can be used from one species to another
    5.  If plant products are acceptable for organic cultivation
    6.  If laws are pending to label the products
    7.  How long it takes to make an improved plant product

    Now honestly answer these questions:

    1. Which technology is most precise?
    2. Which technology is best understood?
    3.  Did you realize that humans have intervened to create so many common foods?
    4.  Did you know that you regularly consumed so many genetically altered products?
    5.  Isn't it amazing that humans just implement nature's own tools to improve plants?

    I hope this helps your understanding.  Thanks to everyone that offered such great feedback.  Maybe together we can share an honest discussion to take the franken out of frankenfood, and use the best available safe and proven technologies to shape the future of food.

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    I think your table is quite informative, but the row for "number of genes affected" is certainly a bit difficult to assess.  While I realize that you're talking about types of plants, rather than specific species, it can be difficult to provide accuracy and context.

    For example, I believe strawberries have a bit more than 30K genes, so obviously it makes a difference if we make a claim regarding how many genes are affected.

    Part of the problem I have with this type of comparison is that it is almost too simplistically made, because it fails to take into account that many of the other methods by which plant genetics have been modified were also done in ignorance.  It is simply the long history of their role as food that has overcome any bias.

    I personally feel that ANY modifications should always be subject to testing, verification, etc.  So it isn't a matter of singling out GMO's, since clearly any modification has the potential to cause problems [i.e. consider the hybrid grass].  So, I don't see that as actually answering any questions.  Now, if the point is that new hybrids are not subject to testing, then that's an issue that is certainly legitimately raised.

    I don't agree that it is relevant to raise the issue of plants that were hybridized 20,000 years ago.  They weren't done scientifically and it is largely the good fortune of our ancestors that they have done no significant harm.  However, it is also legitimate to question whether some of these plants are responsible for certainly food allergies in individuals that may lack a tolerance for some of these variations. 

    All in all, it is quite a complex issue and there are numerous ways in which data can be interpreted or "spun".  My personal view is that it doesn't appear to be a particularly effective technology at this point compared to alternatives that are also currently on the market.  I'm also a bit suspicious at the intense desire to sell these products to people that clearly don't need them. 

    While they may be quite useful in difficult areas for farming and in areas where starvation is a problem, I fail to see why issues like the labeling laws proposed in California should make a difference to such usage.  In short, it simply appears that we're being marketed to in a quite aggressive manner and like most salesmen that get too pushy ... people push back.
    Gerhard Adam | 06/27/12 | 22:42 PM
    KevinFolta
    Gerhard,  Good points.  The number of genes affected is a hard number to pin down.  Strawberry has 34K genes predicted.  But remember, strawberry is octoploid, so four times that number, and eight times that number if we're talking gene variants (just one could eliminate function of all others, theroetically).  It is just to contrast that in a transgenic we move 1-3, precisely.  In hybrids we move many more in unpredictable ways. 
    It would be impossible to test all hybrids. Plants are patented every day and there's no reason to suspect that there will be a problem.  However, it can, and does occur, so we always have to be vigilant.  Again, the point is that new allergens, toxins, etc can happen from any cross or transgene added, but it is much more likely from the former than the latter.  The chances of either are rather remote.

    The 20,000 year issue is important, and I don't think (no evidence for this) that it was all good fortune.  Many people probably died eating toxic, yet beautiful, berries.  Look at cassava.  If you don't prep it right, it can be poisonous.  The plants that evolved to modern times and then were manipulated by humans are pretty good at this point because toxic elements are largely bred out. 

    Check the point about "particularly effective technology".  Bt cotton in China is one stellar example. Compare pesticide rates before and after Bt.  Pretty effective.  That's the tip of the iceberg.  Plus, farmers are a savvy bunch of consumers.  If it didn't work, they'd choose conventional hybrids. 

    We'll see on the labeling issue.  The only thing I don't like about it is that the law as written is just awful- no factual basis for it.  That scares me that we'd make policy with no evidence, just fear and belief.  History tells us that doesn't work so hot.   Take care, Kevin
    —
    Don't tell me it can't be done. Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
    Kevin M. Folta | 06/28/12 | 09:45 AM
    Gerhard Adam
    The 20,000 year issue is important, and I don't think (no evidence for this) that it was all good fortune.  Many people probably died eating toxic, yet beautiful, berries.
    Which makes my point.  Foods that were modified that long ago have already had all the difficult "testing" done on them, of which we are fundamentally ignorant.
    The only thing I don't like about it is that the law as written is just awful- no factual basis for it.
    I would agree that the law needs to be about actual labeling and not warnings.  In addition this should actually serve as a basis for opening a dialogue about ALL food labeling requirements, so that the consumer can become better informed; not just about GMOs.
    In hybrids we move many more in unpredictable ways.   It would be impossible to test all hybrids. Plants are patented every day and there's no reason to suspect that there will be a problem.
    Of course there's reason to suspect, which is precisely why cows died from prussic acid poisoning.  In any venture, changes are the pathway by which problems are potentially introduced.  Anyone that becomes complacent about that fundamental truth is setting themselves up for difficulties.

    I also agree that it would be impossible to test all hybrids, GMO's, etc.  Which is precisely why a means by which we can accurately label and gather data about the longer-term affects becomes a logical extension of the scientific effort.  It affords transparency and choice to consumers.  Certainly producers don't want any negative connotations because it may impact sales, but this isn't about their profits.  It's about good science and proper testing and monitoring.

    I'm not quite sure about your statement that "plants are patented every day".  I hope you're mistaken about that and that it is the modification or the seed production processes that are patented/licensed.  I find the notion of patenting lifeforms for whatever reason to be a completely irrational concept.
    Gerhard Adam | 06/28/12 | 16:48 PM
    Gerhard,

    I want to follow up on a key observation of yours, namely that "that many of the other methods by which plant genetics have been modified were also done in ignorance." I am working on on a literature review of harmful, unintended consequences of breeding, and I can find 9 documented examples of such incidents. The worst thing that happened was either a sore stomach or a skin rash. Nothing permanent. The Tifton 85 incident may prove to be the 10th and most serious incident, but as per my previous post, is far from proven. Undoubtedly, there must have been numerous unreported incidents, but probably without serious consequences or they would be news.

    When one considers that there have been millions of varieties, 9 cases of mild harm is almost negligible. Given "that many of the other methods by which plant genetics have been modified were also done in ignorance", it shows that genetic modification simply does not have the ability to be very harmful. Safety testing is expensive, and diverts resources from other areas. Given the limited resources we have all around, it is important that we focus them on where the real risks are, and not squander them on perceived risks.

    Wayne Parrott (not verified) | 06/28/12 | 19:40 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    While I understand what you're saying, the problem is that serious incidences will rarely recur and generally aren't considered part of the literature.  As an example [unrelated to genetics] is the issue of toxicity when it comes to wild mushrooms.  Even though these can be deadly foods, we presume that people should be knowledgeable when consuming such foods.  Similarly with puffer fish and other sources of known toxicity.

    Generally, it isn't that genetics isn't important, but I would expect that it would take something a bit more extensive to take a food that has been safe and convert it into one that was toxic [without specific genetic manipulation to achieve that objective].  However, I wouldn't consider the harm as being trivially incidental.  Allergies can be quite significant and invariably almost exclusively result from consuming foods that have been modified through human agriculture.  Even human consumption of cow's milk can be a factor.  So, depending on how you want to classify "human modifications", the results can be quite different than your suggestion of only 9 documented examples.
    Safety testing is expensive, and diverts resources from other areas.
    That simply is irrelevant and inexcusable.  If a company wants to profit by selling me a product, then they have the legal and moral obligation to provide me with whatever information I need to make a decision.  If they haven't tested it, then it should be labeled as such.  Personally, no matter how expensive testing is, it doesn't begin to compare to the medical expenses that people have to endure when something goes wrong or die.  That is NEVER a valid excuse from a company seeking to profit from individuals.
    ...it shows that genetic modification simply does not have the ability to be very harmful.
    It shows no such thing.  Since you can't possibly known what serious harm may have ensued previously, and you're making the false assumption that modifying fewer genes is somehow safer than modifying thousands.  The flaw in that reasoning is that you don't know what effects hybridization produces that may reduce potential problems because of gene interaction.  With specific manipulation the objective is to avoid such cell regulatory actions, so you can't possibly know what is safe or not.

    I wouldn't say that the development of antibiotics were directly harmful to human beings either.  They clearly saved millions of lives.  However, it's not an easy argument to make when telling an individual that may be dying from an antibiotic resistant infection.  If anything, we should learn that there are never going to be simple answers in biology, and that whatever works today may not work tomorrow.  Most importantly, the ultimate flaw in the genetic modification argument is that it NEVER considers that the modifications don't stop simply because a seed has been produced.  That plant will continue to be subject to all the normal elements of natural selection and genetic modification, so if a geneticist were to assure you that only the modified genes could have an effect ... well ... they'd be lying.
    Gerhard Adam | 06/28/12 | 20:56 PM
    KevinFolta
    Gerhard, I completely understand where you are coming from. Let me simply state that there are no safety tests done on any hybrids. Maybe in big companies, but a new cultivar is a new cultivar, and I seriously doubt that anything you eat has had rigorous safety testing (except transgenics). To addres your point: "The flaw in that reasoning is that you don't know what effects hybridization produces that may reduce potential problems because of gene interaction. With specific manipulation the objective is to avoid such cell regulatory actions, so you can't possibly know what is safe or not." What this means is that a single gene inserted is a precise event. We know what it is, where it inserts, what the outcomes are. It is much harder to ascertain that with a conventional hybrid, where may deleterious processes may, or may not, take place. I agree with your last sentence. Such a scientist would be lying. This is why science is always skeptical, always testing. I guarantee that the person that finds that GMO corn (90% of acreage) is conclusively dangerous to the environment or humans or farm animals, will get a Nobel Prize. Until then we know it has benefit, we know it has risks, but there is no evidence of harm. We have to work with evidence. I think that's really a good comforting thing. take care,
    —
    Don't tell me it can't be done. Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
    Kevin M. Folta | 06/28/12 | 21:10 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    What this means is that a single gene inserted is a precise event. We know what it is, where it inserts, what the outcomes are.
    Yes, but I want to be clear in my point.  If that gene and it's position mutates, what is the outcome then?  Similarly if any of the other genes change, or the regulatory genes change?
    Gerhard Adam | 06/28/12 | 21:17 PM
    KevinFolta
    Gerhard, mutations happen all day, every day.  It is only when they are in germ cells and perpetuated, then confer a selective advantage (+/-) are they maintained in a population.  It is not something we've ever worried about because transgene or native gene, the chance of something going from one gene function to something deleterious to the consumer are extremely remote. 
    —
    Don't tell me it can't be done. Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
    Kevin M. Folta | 06/29/12 | 05:50 AM
    Gerhard Adam
    I think that's exactly the point though, because we're now introducing a different "level" of development and therefore this becomes the "jumping off point" for new mutations and or hybridization.  We know that some of these GMO's will crossbreed.  We also know that they in turn will trigger resistance in other species [especially non-target species].  Obviously the hope is that with careful management and judicious use then that issue can be postponed and avoided.
    ...the chance of something going from one gene function to something deleterious to the consumer are extremely remote...
    I agree.  However, remote is not impossible.  Even if this round of GMO's isn't a problem and everything goes swimmingly, there are other issues as mentioned previously that are also part of the GMO issue.  In turn this will likely result in even more aggressive genetic manipulation, etc.

    Using the analogy of antibiotics as a backdrop, let me be clear that we are going down a path here that we can't afford to have companies later decide that they aren't interested any longer because they can't make as much money as they used to.  Once we begin this approach of directly modifying genes then we are and will be responsible for those plants until they become extinct.  If we suddenly find ourselves with pesticide resistant insects, such that further modifications become necessary, I don't want to be having the conversation in the future [like we are with antibiotics] about how companies can't afford to do it because it isn't as profitable as it once was.

    That's why I've continuously stated my primary objection to GMOs is economic/political.  These are significant socially important long-term decisions being made by entities that have never demonstrated much of an attention span beyond making their initial profit. [i.e. corporations].

    I hope this doesn't sound like I'm changing the objectives, but part of the problem in discussing the science is that we aren't realistically discussing all the risks and the long-term responsibility we will have in managing it.  Instead we're looking on an impossibly short horizon for these plants and simply assuming that everything will be wonderful.  Perhaps it will, but we cannot reasonably evaluate the economic/political ramifications of these choices, without discussing the complete science [warts and all].  Not to portray dangers, but to portray the long-term commitment we are all engaging in and ensuring that it is properly understood.
    Gerhard Adam | 06/29/12 | 10:19 AM
    vongehr
    This is a very nice table - thank you. I agree with most of the article (that is a big complement from somebody who personally wrote critically about GMO), however, a few remarks are in order.

    1) Modifying one gene only "is most precise" in case we know exactly what that modification is going to do. Currently, we seldom even know what the unmodified gene is doing, let alone unforseen consequences with modifications. Without that, there is no better way than selecting from hybrids, i.e. the "natural way" that made you and me. This holds as long as we do not understand how genes naturally mix, which we currently have still little knowledge about. To reduce it to utter randomness via hinting at the cosmic rays/ UV that are partially involved would ignore the many elaborate mechanisms that we today discover cells/organisms employ in order to almost goal orientedly adapt.

    2) Why not ask: Which technology is most respecting of the fact that it is co-evolution (environment, other species) that ensures mutual compatibility? Also here do the "organic" hybrids and their ~5-30 years until new variety win against the technologies that can jump very far inside the lab before exposure.

    I am looking forward to your writing more about why certain pre-cautions, like that the Natural is still often naturally better, are adequately dealt with by people pushing novel technologies.
    Sascha Vongehr | 06/27/12 | 23:15 PM
    KevinFolta
    Hello Sascha, I may not understand point 1.  There are really just two genes that account for almost all transgenics.  These are the cry genes (encode Bt toxin) and EPSPS (glyphosate resistance).  We do understand exactly how they work.  Michael Eisen has a brilliant blog on Science 2.o that explains it well.  
    Be careful when you say the "natural way".  None of these plants are here naturally, and very few are even close to the natural wild relatives.  Humans have installed a lot of traits with breeding and selection, both processes not natural at all. 

    On your second point, let's talk trees.  Fruit trees, nut trees, lumber trees.  If you want to be a tree breeder you may get a few generations in your career.  Hard to install a gene in a population through traditional breeding in that time frame.  You can make a transgenic apple, orange, poplar, etc in no time.  This speed is a huge advantage to bringing valuable traits to consumers faster. 

    I'm happy to write on all sides of these issues, so if you find something juicy just let me know.  Thanks.
    —
    Don't tell me it can't be done. Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
    Kevin M. Folta | 06/28/12 | 09:52 AM
    vongehr
    Hello Sascha, I may not understand point 1
    Seems you did also not understand point 2, but that is not surprising after looking at the time stamps of your answers (how many minutes between your dealing with Gerhard and finishing up reading and answering me?). Sorry, but if you want to be taken serious, perhaps it is time to take others seriously.
    Sascha Vongehr | 06/28/12 | 10:55 AM
    KevinFolta
    Sascha, 
    I'm sorry, please don't think I short-changed your inquiry.  I read it several times and still maybe will miss the point after many readings.  I think you can see from my responses here and on all threads that I do take others seriously.  Important. 

    "2) Why not ask: Which technology is most respecting of the fact that it is co-evolution (environment, other species) that ensures mutual compatibility?"


    The reason for why I see this as ambiguous is because I see this through the lens of someone that understands crop domestication and breeding.  It is co-evolution. Michael Pollan I think coined the idea that are we helping plants improve, or are they helping us?  So in my mind implementation of the most rapid and safe technologies to improve plants is always welcome.  It might be the word "respecting".   We're using technology to drive that co-evolution.  To me, that seems like such a good thing.


    "Also here do the "organic" hybrids and their ~5-30 years until new variety win against the technologies that can jump very far inside the lab before exposure." 


    Again, this is a little unclear.   I cited trees where breeding times are long (linkage drag, long juvenillity, etc) but transgenic solutions can be short and more precise.  I'm sorry, but I don't understand the "win against" and "jump very far inside the lab before exposure".   Maybe rephrase that and we'll get on the same page. 

    Thanks for your input and guidance on this. 
    —
    Don't tell me it can't be done. Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
    Kevin M. Folta | 06/28/12 | 11:22 AM
    Here's my test for food plants: If the resulting seeds are sterile and can't be saved and replanted, don't eat it and don't buy it. Those seeds are worthless and lack climate adaptation.

    Anonymous (not verified) | 06/28/12 | 01:01 AM
    KevinFolta
    I'm sorry that you'd miss out on so many good, nutritious plants!  Bananas, watermelons, so many examples. 
    Keep in mind too that some fruits are parthenocarpic-- no viable seeds.

    Also remember that there is inbreeding depression and seeds that may germinate, but lead to poorly performing plants from self fertilization. 

    Sometimes the seeds that come off of a product are nothing like the parents, like in strawberries.  Seed propagation does not always make sense! 
    —
    Don't tell me it can't be done. Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
    Kevin M. Folta | 06/28/12 | 09:56 AM
    You forgot to mention that it's possible to introduce genes from organisms that are not closely related with transgenics that’s impossible or extremely rare in nature. But with hybridization you can only mix genes from more closely related species. One problem now is with “natural” hybridization from plants and animals from different continents.

    Anonymous (not verified) | 06/28/12 | 05:44 AM
    KevinFolta
    Yes, very true.  I did mention agrobacterium, a natural transfer from bacteria to plants.  There are other instances as well such as aphid-mediated transfers and absorption and integration of DNA across kingdoms from carnivorous plants.  Maybe the coolest one is a plant to animal transfer, in Elysia chlorotica-- SUPER COOL.  
    Good points.  In order to make a hybrid you have to be somewhat sexually compatible.  Other techniques like protoplast fusions can get around that, but it still requires some relatedness. 

    All valid points.  I guess I had to not get that deep into the table for fear of it becoming massive.  Thanks.
    —
    Don't tell me it can't be done. Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
    Kevin M. Folta | 06/28/12 | 10:00 AM
    Kevin,

    Thanks for your postings, and particularly the table on methods. A few comments from my extension service at Georgia. Suffice it to say that key details were missing in the CBS report, and we are a long way from implicating Tifton 85 in the incident:

    Summary of What is Currently Known:
    - In one (emphasis: 1) extreme case in Texas during late May 2012, 15 of 18 head of Corriente roping calves died within a short time of being turned into a Tifton 85 pasture. The animals had been hungry, stressed, and thirsty after being used in roping practice. The calves were also in poor condition with an estimated body condition score of 4.

    - The evidence indicates that the animals died of prussic acid poisoning. Preliminary evidence from semi-quantitative measurements indicated that the Tifton 85 had low to very low levels of prussic acid. Subsequent analyses of these samples to conduct a quantitative measure of these levels did not always match with the semi-quantitative assessment. Additional analyses are being conducted.

    - It is still very unclear just what role (if any) was played by the Tifton 85 in this unfortunate case of cyanide poisoning. The investigation is still in a preliminary stage and no conclusions should be reached until it has been completed. Further details will emerge about this case as the investigation continues. Until then, avoid over-reacting to this report of cyanide poisoning and rushing to judgment about Tifton 85.

    - Media accounts have falsely claimed that Tifton 85 is a transgenic or, so-called, genetically modified organism (GMO). Tifton 85 is a hybrid and NOT a transgenic or GMO crop. Tifton 85 is a cross between a bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon, specifically cv. Tift 292 (an armyworm resistant plant introduction in the USDA-ARS collection)] and a closely related Cynodon species called stargrass [Cynodon nlemfuensis, specifically cv. Tifton 68 (highly digestible, but cold susceptible). Crosses were made by placing inflorescences (the day before pollen shed) of each parent in a beaker of water. The inflorescences were covered with a glassine bag to control pollination. Each day, thereafter, bag and inflorescences were thumped to distribute pollen. Seeds were collected and those were germinated in the greenhouse and subsequently transplanted in the field. Plants with great potential were increased and selected to be tested in replicated plots and under grazing. CBS News has since corrected their article online after receiving feedback from the Georgia Seed Development Commission about these inaccuracies. (See the factsheet entitled the “Media Distortions about Tifton 85” on the homepage of www.georgiaforages.com.)

    - Other common forage crops (e.g., forage sorghum, sudangrass, white clover, etc.) and pasture weeds (e.g., Johnsongrass, black cherry trees, etc.) can produce prussic acid when stressed, as well. Even some fruits and vegetables (e.g., peaches, apples, apricots, cherries, lima beans, etc.) produce cyanogenic compounds in some of their plant tissues, but these parts (usually seeds) are not consumed by humans. Cyanogenic compounds are short-lived and will escape as a gas in a short time if allowed access to the atmosphere. (More comments about cyanide poisoning is presented in the attached factsheet entitled the “Media Distortions about Tifton 85” or find it on the homepage of www.georgiaforages.com.)

    - Tifton 85 is superior to all other bermudagrass cultivars within its zone of climatic adaptation. It continues to be the most highly recommended hybrid bermudagrass cultivar in the southern two-thirds of Georgia and similar climatic zones (approximately all of USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 7b or greater).

    - The risk of prussic acid poisoning from Tifton 85 is extremely small, if at all. Tifton 85 has been used extensively in the Southeastern U.S. and Central and South America since its release in 1995. Tifton 85 is a proven hybrid. It has been more thoroughly evaluated than essentially any other single forage cultivar. It is a safe, high yielding, and highly digestible hybrid bermudagrass.

    Wayne Parrott (not verified) | 06/28/12 | 19:27 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    The risk of prussic acid poisoning from Tifton 85 is extremely small, if at all.
    Why would you add "if at all"? 
    Tifton 85 is a proven hybrid. It has been more thoroughly evaluated than essentially any other single forage cultivar. It is a safe, high yielding, and highly digestible hybrid bermudagrass.
    Is this marketing, or science? 
    Many forage species, including Tifton 85, have the potential to produce prussic acid, a volatile and toxic compound, Hairgrove said.
    http://today.agrilife.org/2012/06/26/experts-texas-cattle-deaths-due-to-prussic-acid-isolated-incident/
    So, we know that it can happen with many other forage grasses. So that isn't a small but real risk intrinsic in such grasses [GMO, hybrid, etc. doesn't matter].

    However, the next paragraph is a bit more telling regarding legitimate concerns being raised.
    “Thus, the pasture did not fit the typical young flush of growth following a drought-ending rain or young growth following a frost we typically associate with prussic acid formation in other species of forage,” he said.
    So, it would be quite legitimate to ask, if we have conditions that we know normally give rise to prussic acid and now we have a grass that behave under different circumstances or produce different symptoms.
    Gerhard Adam | 06/28/12 | 21:05 PM
    KevinFolta
    Thanks Wayne. This information is the most detailed posting on the subject to date. I really appreciate your clarification. kevin
    —
    Don't tell me it can't be done. Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
    Kevin M. Folta | 06/28/12 | 21:01 PM
    Kevin,

    Stef had this open so I dove straight into it. I greatly appreciate the fact that you can communicate such complex subjects without elevating the conversation above and beyond my understanding.

    C.P. (not verified) | 06/28/12 | 21:25 PM
    KevinFolta
    Thanks CP... glad you got to read this.  I hope to see you guys one of these days!
    —
    Don't tell me it can't be done. Tell me how you are going to help me do it.
    Kevin M. Folta | 06/29/12 | 05:52 AM