You misunderstood/ignored a part of my explanation...still looking for some pathetic "gotcha," be it just a poorly aimed general insult to my intelligence and/or use of the internet at this point...so I will endeavor to be more explicit, in deference to your choice to yet belabor the issue.
I never claimed NOT to recognize that the biofortification.org
cite was a different word than biofortified ...I also explained that I did not just randomly link your site to that cite of my own accord, nor did I even imagine to go looking for some similarly named entity for any reason. There are a good number of "snoop" sites that purport to provide additional reverse lookup info beyond straight "who is" data...which immediate data I accurately had first noted. I then quickly cycled through a few other of these investigatory sites, tracking links they provided and contemporaneously posted my further observations. One of these sites linked YOUR org to the IP address of the biofortification entity...then claiming both were located out of California.
I then did a straight "who is" which I provided a link to in my earlier reply...and from there I found the HarvestPlus connection as I said. I did note that the WhoIs located that server out of Virginia. The names being so similar and there seemingly being a variety of server locations showing for both entities, California being the shared...I felt I had seen enough to at least note the connection. The snoop sites tend to be geared toward inviting you into paying for even greater detail, and as you may surmise, offer up suggestive plausible connections to urge belief they have something to offer, but payment is required to truly unlock greater detail. As your entity is but a side issue of the overarching topic of the thread and my actual concerns over labeling, I was not about to pay for greater clarification. ..this is why I really did not put too much stock in the finding even at the time, and did not rely on it more than to simply note my findings.
You have clarified and I have already acknowledged the connection appears false...CGIAR seemed a surprise anyway, as I have been quite plain that I believe you instead to be a shill for Monsanto, a private for-profit corp.,not of an admittedly previously unknown world agricultural organization. I still believe you seek ultimate employment in the lab of a seed producer...as at least partial source of strong pro-company bias in your positions.
Nice try at sidestepping that you have been a sort of "professional combatant" of these exact issues for years. The several topics I alluded to were meant primarily to communicate to you that I had indeed tapped into some of your prior arguments dating back several years, without inviting wholesale further digression into ad hominem attack of you as a person. It was meant as a disincentive to push for more particularized rehashing of your older battles and arguments...as said, my interest is not in vilifying you but in addressing specious opposition to the consumers' right to know how food has been manipulated and produced, in areas beyond just GMO seeds and techniques.
Once again, I invented nothing...and had reviewed with interest your opponents' comments beneath the article dating back to early 2010...issues about grant funding, etc.http://mblogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/
Your rising to the defense of Monsanto more directly: http://themomu.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/monsanto-broccoli-better-living-through-chemistry-non-gmo-roundup/
Monsanto linking to your blog on their website about 3/4 down the page:http://www.monsanto.com/features/Pages/roundup-ready-alfalfa-news-coverage.aspx
Monsanto and others using their PR teams to allegedly already support your group in questioned ways aside from remuneration:http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11625-the-changemakers-controversy-
Again...I don't care who you are or what your aspirations may be...only to the degree you want to pretend no motivational connection to Monsanto whatsoever and shrug off any questioning as to bias in your expressed viewpoints.
That said...I am not out on a witch hunt of you...I post to this forum and your people appeared to troll the thread with dismissive disdain and disregard for simple belief in the consumer's right to know.
Best of luck to you in your future in the GMO field...please strive for complete long term testing even of the more seemingly benign modifications...and also for Monsanto and other patent holders to abstain from stifling through direct and indirect means, contrary or damaging study findings from outside the industry's extensive network across academia and otherwise.