100 Billion animals. 30 Years. The Largest GMO Study. Ever.

The University of California, Davies have recently released a study covering nearly 30 years of animal health, a period before GMO's were introduced and subsequently, 18 years after its introduction, It's estimated that up to 90% of animals are now fed some sort of GM derived product.

So, what was the result?

GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.

You can find the study HERE

And a Forbes article HERE

I think this trumps all the anecdotal evidence and pseudoscience presented by the anti-GMO crowd, what say you?

a reply to: AlphaHawk

Well, when you have Universities getting grands in behave of doing specific research in order for companies to push their own agendas, is legal in America to lie while poisoning the consumer.

Sadly The Davis report was funded by cabals like Monspanto.

Last August, a promising new report about genetically modified corn flickered across a Web site sponsored by the corn's corporate creator, the biotechnology giant Monsanto Co.

Citing new research by the University of California, Davis, the report said corn altered to produce its own pesticide was a biotechnology bonanza - one that could make farmers across the country wealthier and reduce the use of toxic insecticides.

But there was one fact the “Biotech Knowledge Center” Web site failed to mention: Monsanto paid for the UC Davis research.

Following a pattern set by farm chemical companies in the 1960s, the biotechnology industry is mining public agricultural colleges such as UC Davis for scientific research, confidential business advice and academic support for its technology.

You name it, and biotechnology companies help pay for it at UC Davis: laboratory studies, scholarships, post.doctoral students' salaries, professors' travel expenses, even the campus utility bill. Some professors earn extra money, up to $2,000 a month, consulting for such companies on the side.

www.sacbee.com...

This is how the private interest push anything in the land of opportunity where everything have a price, you get the results you want, for the right prices, hell you can push poison like it was sugar.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

Too bad she has ties to Monsanto! Odd isn't it?

ALISON LOUISE VAN EENENNAAM

July 2000 PROJECT LEADER, Monsanto, Calgene Campus - June 2002 Davis, CA, U.S.A.
July 1998 RESEARCH SCIENTIST, Monsanto, Calgene Campus - June 2000 Davis, CA, U.S.A.

FDA

Oh I see, you guys can't debunk the study then?

Attack the ball, not the player remember.

I'd say any study paid for by Monsatan is worth about as much as what I wipe my butt with.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

No, dear, you can not debunk a study that is financed by the same people that are pushing the results of that study, is plenty of independent reports that are no finance by GMO companies out there, most of them comes from over sea studies because in the US companies hold the rights to their products, so nobody that is not financed by the companies themselves can do studies in the US.

So what is being said is that GMO foods are safe? And a university study has proved it. A university that had the research funded by Monsanto.....

Kind of like how labs and universities that were funded by big tobacco came to the conclusion that tobacco was safe back in the day?

Hmmm....... OK

Even if GMO is not harmful to farm animals, that still does not change the fact that patented seeds are bad news for farmers. Heirloom seeds make much more sense and can be saved for future crops, hybrids are also useful as they can produce both better and more products.

IMHO GMO's main goal seems to be surviving herbicides like round up, and making it illegal for farmers to save seeds to use for next years crops.

GMO seems to be about controlling seed and the power and money that creates, not getting more crops per acre.

The evidence seems compelling. However, considering the implications, if the evidence would have been contradictory to the current dialogue by Monsanto ie what we are selling is safe, the sheer volume that is sold at the moment would be almost impossible to reverse. Not to mention, the spread of the pollen in nature soiling or benefiting it, if it is the later no problem, otherwise what do we do?

Monsanto has played their cards very well, assuming that their product isn't as promisingly good as claimed, they know that reversing the changes are of gargantuan proportions.

I fear that money being the prime motivator for truth, since science needs money to work, this prime motivator is a potential source of misrepresentation or fraud.

We need to be vigilant, diligent and honest. Honesty is the hardest to achieve and is the most important.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
Oh I see, you guys can't debunk the study then?

We can't debunk it any more than you can prove it valid. But showing that it was funded by a huge corporation who has an extreme vested interest in the outcome it purports, is a pretty good sign that the results aren't trustworthy.

Besides, my dogs eat their own poop, too, and it doesn't hurt them, but that doesn't mean I want to eat it.

I say go ahead and make GMO food. Just label it so the consumer has a CHOICE.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Besides, my dogs eat their own poop, too, and it doesn't hurt them, but that doesn't mean I want to eat it.

You just made my day with that quote.

I say go ahead and make GMO food. Just label it so the consumer has a CHOICE.

I agree, but when companies have to paid millions of dollars to lobby against the wishes of the consumer that is a big red flag that they have something to hide the same way that they want to hide their GMO products in the food that is sold

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
Oh I see, you guys can't debunk the study then?

We can't debunk it any more than you can prove it valid. But showing that it was funded by a huge corporation who has an extreme vested interest in the outcome it purports, is a pretty good sign that the results aren't trustworthy.

Besides, my dogs eat their own poop, too, and it doesn't hurt them, but that doesn't mean I want to eat it.

I say go ahead and make GMO food. Just label it so the consumer has a CHOICE.

You bring up a good point BH!!

Here is a link to a brief power point, Ms. ALISON LOUISE VAN EENENNAAM uses to "convince" people that GMO is good for you, but the telling slide is where she is "AGAINST" GMO labeling. If it is as safe as they say, why fear the label?

LINK

Funny in a way I look at this just like I do the catholic church.

You have a lot of people coming together using reference to their own views to influence that their view is correct controlled by a system needing the view to be seen as correct to get money to support them.

Tell me when you have objective research that take into account the evolutionary changes on the environment on the time span of a thousand years. If you cannot do that keep it in the lab where it belongs as a work in progress.

Lets say for a second that the study wasnt biased or just plain old bought and it is genuine.
How long do these animals live on average? I doubt many of them live more than a few years so really what the study should be saying is that there are no noticeable short term effects in ANIMALS!!!!

Despite this study Ill still choose Non GM foods and when possible will avoid meat that has been fed them

U.S. Meat Banned in 160 Countries., this can tell why so many countries will not trust US FDA meat, but is good of human consumption in the US and pushed by the government.

U.S. Meat Contains a Drug that Even Russia Has Banned
There’s a lot of buzz in our nation about eating healthy and introducing more organic foods into your diet, including meats, cheeses, and produce. It’s even getting to the point of legislative action, as this past November there was an initiative in California to require producers to label whether their foods contain GMOs (Genetically Modified Organism).

So would you be surprised, then, to learn that more than a handful of countries have banned the use of a substance the U.S. seems to have no problem with whatsoever? And by “more than a handful” I mean 160 countries. Don’t you find it strange that we’ve upped the importance of “eating organic” ten-fold, yet we’re still using harmful animal feed additives that even Russia won’t allow?

blog.nutricell.com...

Perhaps the new study will change the mind of the countries that ban US meat to start buying.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

Look at what is going on with all the vaccine news as of late. The same people that said "No, they are all safe, and in no way linked to childhood Autism." are now saying "Oops, I lied in the study results I presented. Well, they paid me to... Wait, they made me lie... Yeah that's the ticket, they made me lie!"! Oj didn't kill Nicole either... Anything can be shaped into truth with enough mighty Greenback Dollars. Believe it or don't. If you don't believe there are some sinister people force feeding the sheeple BS then please spend more time in these forums, maybe you'll get it soon enough.

a reply to: AlphaHawk


In looking peripherally at this study things I have noticed:

This particular study seemed to have an agenda from the very beginning, citing many "anti" GMO studies and seeking to disprove them. (Which is fine, but it indicates bias from the outset.)

This study is considering basic health (by correlation of death weight and general carcass inspection, as best as I can tell) without adding the variables of antibiotic and steroid injections.

Granted, I'm not a biologist, but I will forward this to a friend of mine in grad school that IS a biologist and see what he thinks of the study.

The main question though, as always: Who provided the funding?

This study was funded by the king of GMO"s himself. Why would you or anybody take this study seriously? It's equivalent to a study done claiming alcohol is healthy, but funded by major alcohol companies...

originally posted by: Voyaging
This study was funded by the king of GMO"s himself. Why would you or anybody take this study seriously? It's equivalent to a study done claiming alcohol is healthy, but funded by major alcohol companies...

if that is in fact true, then yes, this study is another one of those that can be taken with a grain of salt.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
Oh I see, you guys can't debunk the study then?

Attack the ball, not the player remember.

cute. LOL