If it was 100%, and the vaccine prevented it, then it is 100% effective with 0% margin of error.
0% margin of error? How do you figure? Maybe I'm just mixing up terms (surely you don't just mean standard deviation in the sample?), but it seems to me that no matter your assumptions a 0% margin of error based on this study would be rather foolish and meaningless.
I thought trans fat was only about texture and stability / shelf life (while being cheaper than animal fats). Do you have more info on the claim that trans fats were thought to help prevent heart disease?
Additionally, there are some natural trans fats too, but they do not have the same effect on heart disease as currently manufactured trans fats
Maybe I'm missing something but, but you appear to be asking what currently available GMO crops contain "entirely separate species". Ignore this if I misread.
There are only a few currently on-the-market GM crops, where GM refers to transgenic modification, not hybridization. Probably the most commonly known is the Roundup ready line of crops, including soy and corn, but I'm a little sketchy on the details. It appears to have something to do with the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens . Almost as commonly known are crops such as Bt corn and potatoes, which have a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis , The SunUp papaya has a gene fragment from the papaya ringspot virus. Liberty Link corn, soy, etc., has a gene isolated from Streptomyces bacteria. Golden rice has been produced different ways, including genes from daffodil, bacteria, and corn.
Anyway, that's a partial list, in case you're interested. I don't suppose you are actually claiming that there is no practical difference between cross-breeding and transgenics.
There will still be homophobes and other bigots but they'll keep their mouths shut and hopefully their children won't learn their bigotry.
They'll keep their mouths a little more shut in public, and maybe that will actually lead to some good (maybe), but not to their children. Strong opinions + lack of open conversation = more polarization.
And, to me, it is the point. There are issues I frankly care more about a food company's position on than whether a pasta company dude thinks that the iconic family that he wants to portray in his ads includes a woman in the kitchen. I don't speak for Minupla, and have no problem if this issue makes or brakes his pasta-buying choices over other issues that I wished more people cared more about. But against his point as stated, I think my point stands valid.
Sometimes apologies don't mean shit. It's far more important to know what people really believe.
Which is one of the reasons I did/do not support this boycott. Best I could tell, he expressed his opinion, but wasn't or isn't actively trying to suppress gay rights. If we boycott companies for honestly stating opinions, as is my read of this situation (please inform me of any more relevant details, however), then we don't change their opinions, we just change what they say. Everybody loses.
I value my health and sometimes eat burgers => you are wrong, QED.
Really, though, burger meat can be ground on premises from whatever cut of meat you'd like (and I do this myself sometimes, a decent food processor will do the trick), so why the distinction based solely on form?
"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama