So, I started looking into this, just based on the very shady domain name of the place it was published. The [original Italian study][0] that the article is pr

So, I started looking into this, just based on the very shady domain name of the place it was published. The [original Italian study][0] that the article is promoting is probably worth paying attention to. It was published in Scientific Reports, Nature's open-access mega-journal. Their peer review is generally considered solid, though they do also offer a fast-track for a fee. The Genetic Literacy Project, though, is a fully-industry-funded public relations mill, as discussed in [this Chicago Tribune article][1] In this thread, jacquesm provides a link to [a Mother Jones article about the industry connections of the sites' founder][2]. Another contributor to the site [had his emails with Monsanto execs FOIA'ed][3]. If we take HN seriously as a news site, it might have been more appropriate to link to the scientific paper than a PR site, especially given that the paper is not paywalled. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2 [1]: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-monsanto-0c06199a-692b-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205-20151002-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-monsanto-0c061... [2]: https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine/ https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-... [3]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2303691-kevin-folta-uoffloridadocs.html#document/p10/a237532 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2303691-kevin-folta-...