Cover photo
Paul T Morrison
Works at ✔ Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Attended University of Massachusetts Amherst
Lives in ✔ Rockport, MA
19,741 followers|1,342,408 views
Tinkerer, familiar with tools, DNA sequencers, mass spectrometers, chainsaws, pottery wheels, and carbon fiber.
To find the official Paul T Morrison go to the Harvard Directory.

This Google Plus account is owned and operated by Paul T Morrison. The opinions expressed here may not reflect those of my university, institute, staff, colleagues, friends, family, dog, or the Rubber Duck.

If you want the official answer to your question or you want to send me your cv please contact me on LinkedIn or go directly to my primary lab website and click on PEOPLE top right.

Paul T Morrison in Google Scholar.

If you arrived here searching for stories about the Rubber Duck, start here with my articles in Good Morning Gloucester. If you are interested in what my day job is go to my MBCF lab website.
Bragging rights
35 years toiling at the molecular biology wet bench sequencing genes, cloning genes, over expressing the proteins then finding big expensive instruments that will do it faster. Part-time science writer on multiple sites and Rubber Duck chronicler on the biggest and best blog on the North Shore (of Boston, Massachusetts, New England, United States of America), Good Morning Gloucester.
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst
    Botany, 1974 - 1978
  • University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Massachusetts College of Art
    Ceramics, pottery
  • Massachusetts Horticultural Society
  • Falmouth High School
    Falmouth, MA
  • Lawrence High School
    Falmouth, MA
  • Belzer Middle School
    Indianapolis, IN
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary School
    Indianapolis, IN
Basic Information
March 7
Other names
MBCF , Polymerase, Luciferase , paultmorrison
Collections Paul T is following
View all
Scientist, Potter, embarrassing my children.
  • ✔ Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
    Principal Scientist, present
  • ✔ Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
    Director, Molecular Biology Core Facilities, present
  • ✔ Harvard Medical School
    Principal Associate in Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, present
  • ✔ Paul T Morrison Biotechnology Consultants
    President, present
  • ✔ Harvard University
    Director, Molecular Biology and Genomics Core Facility, present
  • ✔ Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
    Associate Director Blais Proteomics Center, present
  • •Marine Biological Laboratory of Woods Hole, •Grain Mill of Falmouth •Cap'n Kidd of Woods Hole,•Otis Air Force Base, Falmouth, •Sheraton Hotel of Falmouth, etc.
    •Dishwasher •freight car unloader •cashier •gopher •lab rat •nail puller •painter (of wood) •weed puller •catheter changer •electrode maker •electron microscopist •etc, 1972 - 1980
  • ✔ = denotes a current verified position
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
✔ Rockport, MA
✔ Wayland, MA - ✔ Boston, MA - Indianapolis, IN - Amherst, MA - Woods Hole, MA - Gloucester, MA - Barcelona, Spain - Zihuatanejo, Mexico - Tiloo Cay, Bahamas - Paris, France - Torrey, Utah - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia - Thera, Greece - Auckland, New Zealand - Rotorua, New Zealand -
Contact Information
Just Google "MBCF"
450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA


Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
hussain j n's profile photo
Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
Europe, (London is still in the EU for a few more days) does not seem to be so anti-GMO as it once was.

#GMO   #gmos  #anti-science #princecharlesisawanker  
Round my way someone is always campaigning against something. Right now it’s a proposed free school and the real reason some locals don’t like it is because of the possible effects on traffic. But...
Paul Munuve's profile photo
true as soon as possible
Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
Father's Day. My father died before the internet went crazy so a search for "William E Morrison" reveals nothing. OK, a hit on one of my favorites of my dad pretending to read to his seven offspring but not much else. But then lightbulb time, I try Google Scholar and bingo, a list of patents. Dad worked as an engineer for Jenn-Air, Lou Jenn convinced him to move to Indianapolis in 1955 (when porch photo was taken) and I remember dad coming home with bandaids on his fingers a lot. He brought a strobe light home and yes, you could easily mesmerize yourself into thinking the fan was not rotating with the rpm matching the strobe and yup, I stuck my finger in too.
So there are patents on those silver mushroom exhaust fans you see on restaurant/commercial roofs. But the first hit is a patent obtained two years after he decided to retire early. He figured out how to make a small tornado!
In the patent description: "The tornado created hereby has use for academic scientific study of similar phenomenon occurring in nature, of which knowledge is quite limited. It has further use as an attractive and educational demonstration."
That's kind of cool.
He also helped design that Jenn-Air stove top grill for steaks but it's not his fault your kitchen filled with smoke. The installation of the centrifugal fan in your basement was never done right. :-)
Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
I have always been fascinated by this sign out on Route 128 (really now 95) in Wakefield. I grew up poor on the wrong Cape so never made it to Pleasure Island but the exit sign beckons. Driving to work fantasizing about what I would do on my Pleasure…
I have always been fascinated by this sign out on Route 128 (really now 95) in Wakefield. I grew up poor on the wrong Cape so never made it to Pleasure Island but the exit sign beckons. Driving to …
Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
There is a perfectly good explanation. First to comment the full reason gets a rare original pink Good Morning Gloucester bumper sticker signed by RD.
There is a perfectly good explanation. First to comment the full reason gets a rare original pink Good Morning Gloucester bumper sticker signed by RD.
Runivis Roan's profile photoAlex Shull's profile photoPaul T Morrison's profile photo
I added a hint on the original post. It involves Rockport Police Radar. (Could be any town.)
Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
Some photos of the last blow. Does google make gifs out of these still? We shall see.
Ann Kennedy's profile photoEl CashMoney's profile photo
Great pics! Such vibrant blues!
Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
Christopher Kelly's profile photoBob Daniel's profile photoAl Hunt's profile photoBrian Renninger's profile photo
Down with what?
Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
The Dangerous Lesson of GMO Science Denial.
“There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls.” George Carlin
Scoob's profile photo
+Paul T Morrison The NAS report should be treated for what it is: not a scientific analysis, but a political document supporting US economic interests.

In reality, the part of the report that deals with animal feeding studies on GM crops is a subtly treacherous mix. Scattered among some sound statements and useful recommendations are a plethora of strategic omissions, gobsmackingly unscientific assertions, wishful thinking, pulled punches, and outright lies. Below I consider just a few.

The NAS ‘disappears’ ill effects on GM-fed animals
The report’s most outrageous deception is the obliteration of the many findings of harm or risk in animal feeding studies on GM crops.

The report says, “The research that has been conducted in studies with animals and on chemical composition of GE food reveals no differences that would implicate a higher risk to human health from eating GE foods than from eating their non-GE counterparts.” That message was translated by the NAS’s press release as “no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between current commercially available genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops”.

That’s where the media got the message that GM crops are safe. It wasn’t (just) dumb or lazy reporting. It came straight from the NAS itself.

But both statements are at best misleading and at worst lies, as anyone knows who has seen any of the long list of animal feeding studies showing risks and harms from GM crops. Ill effects in GM-fed animals include liver and kidney damage, changes in blood biochemistry, and immune responses.

Some might argue that animal studies are not necessarily applicable to humans and thus the NAS’s careful wording of risks to “human health” is defensible. But experiments on animals, especially rodents and pigs, are mandated by regulators worldwide to test and assess the potential human health impacts of pesticides and other chemicals, as well as (in some countries) GM crops. As a society, we’ve agreed on this system, and so we must take seriously the findings of animal studies.

The GMO industry and its allies are well aware of this and fight hard to try to persuade regulators not to require animal feeding studies with GM foods and their associated pesticides – and shoot down those that are carried out and that find problems.

And for whatever reason, the NAS also seems to have felt it necessary to ‘neutralize’ the animal feeding studies that have shown problems with GMOs.

How do the NAS do that? By avoiding directly addressing the findings of harm or signs of possible toxicity in the relevant studies. As far as the NAS is concerned, these studies may as well not exist. Instead they elevate to a position of authority two misleading reviews, written by conflicted-out authors, which claim to find no evidence of harm in GM-fed animals.

Misleading review 1: Van Eenennaam and Young
One of these reviews simply failed to look for any meaningful health effects (Van Eenennaam and Young, 2014). The Van Eenennaam and Young review claims to consider 29 years of livestock productivity field data in the US from before and after the introduction of GMOs, representing more than 100 billion farm animals. These data, the authors said, do not show that livestock health declined after the introduction of GM feed, and therefore show that GMOs cause no health problems in animals.

However, the review tells us almost nothing useful about GMO safety. Many major problems with the review have been identified by the veterinarian Dr Ena Valikov, a vocal critic of GMO science spin and of the Van Eenennaam review in particular.

Nearly 95% of the data are on 49-day-old chickens
Dr Valikov points out that nearly 95% of Van Eenennaam’s data are on 47–49-day-old broiler chickens. Chickens are an irrelevant model for assessing human or even mammalian health risks. And given that a chicken’s natural lifespan is typically 5–7 years, a 49-day-old chicken doesn’t tell us anything about long-term health effects in any animal, even chickens. As Dr Valikov writes, “Even if the study reported convincing health data, it would remain a very short-term study. In other words, it is 19 years’ worth of 49-day-old chickens, which is quite different than 19 years of life-long animal studies.”

No medically relevant data
There are no medically relevant data in the review, so no conclusions can be drawn about health.

Dr Valikov says that for a study drawing conclusions about health, she’d expect to see data on incidence rates of various diseases, laboratory research, post-mortem examinations, and histopathology (microscopic examination of tissues). Such data on livestock health were collected by the FSIS (USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service) between 1998 and 2002. Dr Valikov judges these to be the only medically meaningful data on livestock health. There are no FSIS data from before GMOs were introduced in 1996 or after 2002.

In contrast, the chicken data in the Van Eenennaam review are on the number of days to market, feed efficiency (ratio of feed eaten to weight gained), percentage mortality, and carcass weight.

Dr Valikov explains, “Livestock performance is not a marker of health because the goal of livestock production is minimizing inputs and maximizing production of meat, eggs or milk, regardless of costs to the animal’s health or longevity.

“For the rest of us, who aren’t slaughtered at 49 days, the goals are completely different and extrapolation of findings in livestock to non-livestock – either pets or humans – is absurdly unreasonable.”

For example, rapid weight gain, which is desirable in livestock and is counted as a positive indicator of health by the Van Eenennaam review authors, is harmful to the health of non-livestock animals and humans.

Condemnation rates not an indicator of health
The number of animals condemned at slaughter as too unhealthy to enter the food supply has decreased over the years since GM feed was introduced. The Van Eenennaam review authors suggest that this shows improving health. But Dr Valikov disagrees: “Speed of slaughter lines and the number of assigned federal meat inspectors, whose numbers have been dwindling, affect condemnation rates. They do not substitute for proper post-mortem analysis with histopathology.”

The experience of Australian scientist Dr Judy Carman seems to confirm that slaughterhouse inspections only pick up the most grossly obvious disease, such as large tumours. Dr Carman’s pig feeding experiment (ignored by the NAS) foundthat GM-fed pigs had a higher incidence of severe stomach inflammation and heavier uteri than non-GM-fed pigs. But Dr Carman said all the pigs passed the slaughterhouse inspection, though some were clearly unhealthy.

NAS draws unsupported conclusion
The NAS admits the short-term nature of the data in the Van Eenennaam review, stating: “Of course, most livestock are slaughtered at a young age, so that data cannot address the issue of longevity directly.”

But it goes on to draw a completely unsupported conclusion about health: “However, given the general relationship between general health and longevity, the data are useful.”

Yet there are no meaningful data on health in the study, so no conclusions can be drawn about longevity. Far from being useful, these data are useless.

Uncontrolled variables
The data from Van Eenennaam and Young’s “100 billion animals” are uncontrolled for many variables. It is not even known how many of the animals were eating GMOs, in what proportion of their diet, and for how long.

Other uncontrolled variables include escalating antibiotic use in livestock, which can mask health problems. Antibiotics also have the effect of making animals gain weight more rapidly on less feed – that’s why antibiotics used in livestock farming are called growth promoters. This is another reason why the increase in feed to weight gain efficiency observed in livestock since the introduction of GMOs is not a marker of health.

How the NAS’s experts managed to miss the above points, which should be as plain as daylight to a scientific mind, is anyone’s guess. The NAS’s elevation of this absurd study led Dr Valikov to accuse the Academy of “attempting to turn chicken shit into diamonds”.

Misleading review 2: Snell and colleagues
The NAS also relies upon another review, by Snell and colleagues. Snell and colleagues did look at studies that found toxic effects in animals fed GM foods – but then dismissed the findings by sleight-of-hand. Toxic effects included enlarged lymph nodes in mice fed GM glufosinate-tolerant triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye) over 5 generations and more acute signs of ageing in the liver of mice fed GM soy over 2 years.

Snell and colleagues dismiss these effects on the grounds of certain methodological weaknesses in the studies, such as that they failed to use the non-GM isogenic line (the non-GM parent of the GM crop), grown in the same conditions, as the comparator for the GM crop. The NAS also correctly draws attention to this issue as a general problem in GMO crop feeding studies.

But as is clear from Snell and colleagues’ review, studies that conclude the GM crop tested is safe, and studies that conclude harm or risk, both suffer from this same limitation. Yet in an example of unscientific double standards, Snell and colleagues accept at face value the studies that conclude safety, while rejecting as unreliable the studies that find risk and harm – even though they suffer from the same weaknesses.

As the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility pointed out, “Based on this asymmetrical, result-triggered approach, the review incorrectly concludes that no health hazards were found in 24 analyzed publications.”

No wonder Marc Lavielle, scientific committee member of France’s High Council of Biotechnology (HCB), told Le Monde that the Snell review was “biased”.

The NAS committee follows Snell and colleagues into exactly the same pattern of result-based double standards. It uses methodological weakness as a reason to dismiss or ignore studies that find harm from GMOs, yet it accepts studies finding safety that suffer from exactly the same weakness.

Statistical significance and biological relevance
Another scientific failure of the Snell review authors – and in some cases the authors of the original studies reviewed – is that they dismiss significant differences in the GM-fed animals as not biologically relevant, without defining what biological relevance actually means, or setting a limit for how serious or large an effect has to be before it is considered biologically relevant.

The NAS, to its credit, sees the problem with this practice and correctly says that researchers should define in advance how large any difference in the GM-fed animals has to be in order to qualify as “biologically relevant”. But at the same time, in order to reach its conclusion that GM crops are no more harmful than non-GM crops, it must have accepted at face value the claims of a lack of biological relevance that have been made about all the adverse effects found in studies. If it were acting in the public interest, the NAS should have dismissed the claims of a lack of biological relevance pending further evidence, and concluded that no conclusion of safety can be drawn.

Once again, the NAS has applied unscientific double standards to give GM crops a clean bill of health.

The NAS wants further study – or maybe not
Again to its credit, the NAS agrees with critics of GMO safety that worrying findings in animal feeding studies should be followed up with further research, though it carefully avoids admitting that any of these findings were of harmful effects, preferring to use the term “equivocal results”:

“Public funding in the United States should be provided for independent followup studies when equivocal results are found in reasonably designed initial or preliminary experimental tests.”

But one has to wonder what researcher would even bother to do an honest investigation of the safety of a GM crop, given that the NAS and a compliant media have effectively wiped out all previous findings of adverse effects with their declarations that no differences have been found in GM-fed animals and that GM foods pose no higher risks than non-GM foods. And given that even if the rats fed the GM crop develop clear signs of organ damage, the results will be termed, at best, “equivocal”.

Just in case any researcher is bull-headed enough to ignore the implicit message here – “Don’t ever find a problem with a GM crop!” – the NAS has another argument ready. It’s one that would bypass anyone who is not familiar with this research field, as it’s slipped into the report almost as a by-the-way. The NAS says that any study measuring multiple outcomes, “whether for GE crops or any other potential toxicant, could require over 1,000 animals to obtain reasonable statistical power”. It reaches this conclusion by applying a statistical correction called the Bonferroni method.

Statistical dodge magics away findings of harm
The Bonferroni method has already been used in a review of animal feeding studies with GMOs to dismiss all adverse effects. It’s titled, revealingly, “Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons”, and argues that these studies provide only “weak evidence of harm that cannot be differentiated from chance”.

The problem with the Bonferroni method, as pointed out by many scientists, is that it increases the incidence of Type II errors, or false negatives. That’s when an important effect exists but is wrongly deemed not to be significant.

The Bonferroni method is a GMO proponent’s dream. We can expect to see it invoked whenever an animal feeding study finds a problem with a GM food – though no such doubts are raised by GMO proponents about the statistical power of studies that claim a GM food is safe, even though they typically use similar numbers of animals. Neither does the NAS allow statistical issues to challenge claims of safety in GMO feeding studies.

To witness the NAS joining in an abuse of statistics to disappear inconvenient findings is a sorry sight.

NAS misrepresents the Séralini study
I’ve come to see how someone treats the Séralini study on GM maize and Roundup herbicide as a barometer of their good faith with regard to GMO safety. In common with all studies, it has strengths and weaknesses. Since it was designed as a chronic toxicity study and not as a carcinogenicity study (as was stated in the introduction to the study on its first publication), a fair analysis should focus primarily on the toxicity findings, even though it was the observation of multiple tumours that attracted much of the publicity.

The toxicity findings were that rats fed GM maize and Roundup, both together and individually, suffered liver and kidney damage and hormonal disruption. While the study also noted an increase in tumours and mortality in the rats fed GMO maize and Roundup, the study did not have enough animals to qualify as a carcinogenicity study, so the tumour and mortality observations need to be followed up in studies with larger numbers of animals.

This study was retracted after a campaign of sustained pressure on the editor of the journal that published it, and following the appointment of a Monsanto-linked scientist to the editorial board. It was later republished by another journal.

How did the journal justify the retraction? By treating the study as a failed carcinogenicity study, rather than what it really was – a chronic toxicity study that fell squarely within the norms for such studies. The editor of the journal statedthat the tumour and mortality trends were “inconclusive”. Hundreds of scientists protested that retraction of a study could not be justified on such grounds. But pro-GMO lobbyists and even the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) kept up the pretence that the study was a failed carcinogenicity study, seemingly as a way to dismiss its other, more solidly based, findings.

It is shocking to see the NAS follow suit. While acknowledging that the study’s authors described the study as a chronic toxicity study and not a carcinogenicity study, the NAS completely ignores the chronic toxicity findings – the liver and kidney damage and the hormonal disruption in most treatment groups. The NAS’s justification? “The committee’s analysis focused on the tumor data because they have received the most attention from the public and news media.”

When I read this, I had to do a double-take to ensure I hadn’t momentarily been transported to a parallel universe. The NAS is supposed to be led by science, not the prevailing media buzz.

There seems to be only one possible explanation for the NAS’s perverse action: it had to find an excuse not to deal with the strongest scientific findings of the study.

Incidentally, a separate study has confirmed through a gene expression analysis that the rats fed the lowest dose of Roundup in the Séralini study did indeed suffer liver and kidney damage. The NAS conveniently omitted it from its discussion of the Séralini study, leading to the conclusion that the Academy, to borrow the words of T.S. Eliot, cannot bear very much reality.

The NAS report contains some useful analysis and sound recommendations – which almost certainly will not be acted upon. But on the vexed question of GMO safety, it is profoundly misleading and unscientific.

The NAS’s press release announcing the report hits all the current GMO lobby talking points in turn:

1. New GMO techniques are blurring the line between conventional breeding (implication: don’t even think about regulating or labelling the products of these techniques)
2. GM foods are safe (an example of wishful thinking closing its eyes to the evidence: like Fox Mulder in the X-Files, the NAS ‘wants to believe’)
3. GM foods and crops should be regulated by product, not process (implication: goodbye to Europe’s GMO regulations and labelling; hello to a US-style ‘light touch’ regulatory approach which assumes all GMOs are as safe as non-GMOs).

And the NAS report has worked like a GMO lobbyist’s dream, prompting parts of the British media, for instance, to lobby for Europe to unblock GM crop farming, on the grounds that the report’s eminent authors had blown away claims that GM crops and foods cause harm.

Perhaps not coincidentally, just two days after the publication of the NAS report, Health Canada announced its approval for human consumption of the world’s first commercialised GMO food animal, AquaBounty’s GM salmon. As GM foods have apparently been declared safe, who could possibly object?

Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
Solar-Voayager yesterday morning woke up and one of the two solar panel output’s showed zero output. Redundancy kicked in and yesterday’s travels were heading to Lisbon but last night’s drift occurred earlier because half the juice was made during the…
Solar-Voayager yesterday morning woke up and one of the two solar panel output’s showed zero output. Redundancy kicked in and yesterday’s travels were heading to Lisbon but last night&#…
Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
Rubber Duck was ranting this morning. Went fishing off the rocks and all we caught was a dozen helium balloons with “Happy Birthday” on them. I tried to cast out to snag them before they headed off to Lisbon, Portugal, nailed them but they slipped off the…
Rubber Duck was ranting this morning. Went fishing off the rocks and all we caught was a dozen helium balloons with “Happy Birthday” on them. I tried to cast out to snag them before the…
Add a comment...

Paul T Morrison

Shared publicly  - 
OK, so the Blackburn Challenge has a new twist this year. After you register you get an electronic bib number mailed to you connected to RaceJoy. (Click for info) This software will track everyone in the race. Not sure exactly what “spectators” will see…
OK, so the Blackburn Challenge has a new twist this year. After you register you get an electronic bib number mailed to you connected to RaceJoy. (Click for info) This software will track everyone …
Add a comment...
Paul T's Collections
Paul T Morrison's +1's are the things they like, agree with, or want to recommend.
Why Are We Pro-GMO?

If you're like most people, you are probably thinking: "Vegans who like GMOs?! You've got to be kidding, right?!" Well, anti-GMO conspiracis

Wasps have injected new genes into butterflies

Wasp virus may protect butterflies from a second virus

The Death Of Expertise

To reject the notion of expertise, and to replace it with a sanctimonious insistence that every person has a right to his or her own opinion

European Science’s Great Leap Backward - The New Yorker

Scientific achievement has become a questionable priority in both Europe and the United States. Increasingly, we express contempt for the id

Illuminating the Interactome | The Scientist Magazine®

A massive screen yields the most comprehensive map of binary human protein interactions to date.

The Quest for Myself

Corsica, Bastia, The East Coast. It Is High Time To Express My Opinion (IV) On The Green Peace and The Whales My sympathy to this movement l

Genetic Data Clarify Insect Evolution | The Scientist Magazine®

Researchers create a phylogenetic tree of insects by comparing the sequences of 1,478 protein-coding genes among species.


If you've only had local experiences, 'rock' and 'granite' are synonymous. It's hard to distinguish something utterly common when you can't

Amazon Kindle Voyage Gets Praise for New Features, Scorn for Pricing

While it may not sound like much to spend $199 for a tablet-like device, many believe that two hundred dollars is too high a price to pay fo

Green Groups Go To War On Scientific Reform In Europe

It is, perhaps, not the best of times for Greenpeace. Many of its supporters are angered at the revelation that a senior executive has been

Genome Editing Cuts Out HIV | The Scientist Magazine®

Researchers use the CRISPR/Cas9 method to remove the virus from the host genome in human cell lines.

An entire bacterial genome discovered inside that of a fruit fly

Bacteria have the ability to transfer genes to one another. Now, scientists have found that one species, Wolbachia, has managed to transfer

Leaving the Anti-Vaccine Movement - Voices For Vaccines

I can’t tell you how I became pro-vaccine without first telling you how I became anti-vaccine. When my oldest daughter was about four months

Genetically Engineered Bananas – Audiommunity with Pamela Ronald | Food ...

Bananas are delicious. Personally, my favorite consumption methods are in oatmeal or cereal, in smoothies, or just on their own (for the rec

Food wars | COSMOS magazine

Modern agriculture is under attack. Critics blame it for polluting the planet, destroying forests and damaging human health. In its place th

I just used The ABRF MarketPlace to find a core and it was Amazeballs!

Check it out. The last time I looked I knew I wasn't getting a comprehensive list of cores in my area, now it has everyone. I found some com

Rainbow Garage Inc

Rainbow Garage Inc hasn't shared anything on this page with you.

Thought maybe I would not have to see 40,000 gannets if I could distract Sue. A little winery sign turn right and hilarious sheep are eating the leaves off the vines. Went for a wine tasting, I am really starting to appreciate the local Pinot Noirs and Sauvignon Blancs. We stayed for lunch with a Maltese Falcon Pizza, a little more wine tasting and carried off a few bottles for our mini fridge back in Napier.
Public - 11 months ago
reviewed 11 months ago
When I write restaurant review I try to say at least one thing critical. Can't do it here. Amazingly prepared food, beautiful building, service was just right. Finishing up our first three week stay in New Zealand and I was still on a lamb jag and they were perfect. Sue let me have some of her beef, wow, she only let me have a little. Whole meal was excellent with several entrees (these would be called appetizers in USA) two main dishes (these would be called entrees in USA) and a couple carafes of the local wine. Just a word about New Zealand wine. We had a very nice Pinot Noir there. I don't go crazy about Pinot Noir or Sauvignon Blancs but those two are so tasty in New Zealand. If you are new to the area hit a few wineries and get a taste of the local stuff. Back to Deco, the turkish coffee and the dessert were great. This is where they showed they were doing new fusion or whatever using liquid nitrogen or something to make the ice cream. Whatever they did it was worth it. All that and my credit card said I barely broke a hundred bucks. That type of food and service would normally be double in Boston. Drive down to Piha, hit the beach, then hit this place after you have made it back up the twisty road.
• • •
Public - 11 months ago
reviewed 11 months ago
Fresh fish, shrimp, clams, and all sorts of premade stuff like crab cakes (very tasty) shrimp cakes. Paul Prudhomme's Cajun Spice for the native shrimp, powdered Wasabi for the tuna and salmon that is so fresh just eat it raw on the ride home. This is across the street from the Cape Ann Brewery. Good combo is Fisherman's IPA with the native shrimp. You can get them with the heads on.
Public - 2 years ago
reviewed 2 years ago
These guys will bend over backwards to find you the part you need and their prices are cheaper than going over the bridge to the Apple Store.
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago
13 reviews
Amazing place. Rare photo of Seldom Seen with my daughter.
Public - 2 years ago
reviewed 2 years ago
Around 400 feet north on 103 on the right is the famous rock: "Chicken Farmer I still love you."
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago
The beers are top notch. The fish and chips, fisherman's platter, the haddock sandwich, they do one of the tastiest fried fish (usually haddock) around. You're in Gloucester and you're getting fresh fish.Rest of the menu is decent too I just gravitate to the fresh fish. They make their own fries and potato chips. Wicked. Gets loud when packed but service even when crowded is quick and friendly. Take out growlers. Bring the empties back! Great deal.
Food: ExcellentDecor: ExcellentService: Excellent
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago