GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science

With 2000+ global studies confirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science | Genetic Literacy Project


“The science just hasn’t been done.”

- Charles Benbrook, organic researcher, Washington State University.

“There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat.”

.- David Schubert, Salk Institute of Biological Studies.

“[The] research [on GMOs] is scant…. Whether they’re killing us slowly— contributing to long-term, chronic maladies—remains anyone’s guess.”

- Tom Philpott, Mother Jones.

“Genetically modified (GM) foods should be a concern for those who suffer from food allergies because they are not tested….”

.- Organic Consumers Association.

A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue.

Those claims are simply not true. Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the c onsensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, but the magnitude of the research has never been catalogued.

Still the claim that GMOs are “understudied”—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted at the beginning of this article—have become a staple of anti-GMO critics, especially activist journalists. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists catalogued and summarized 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.
continue to source article at geneticliteracyproject.org.

Well it took me a while to post this thread. I made sure to add all the links as they are in the article minus one. If you go to the source article and click on the 1783 studies you can open and see all the studies their I couldn’t link it.

Personally I am open to any scientific information that disputes the safety of GMOs but I have not seen any as of posting this. The subject grabbed my attention about 6 months ago in these threads. To my dismay when I researched the claims made I never found anything that held up to scrutiny. I asked opponents of GMOs if they could provide the links to which studies convinced them of their dangers or just the links to the most convincing evidence they have found. Aside from a study where some scientists fed some rats GMOs and strait roundup in their water where the rats later produced tumors (ahhem roundup) one linked anything with scientific substance.

Look I am no fan of corporate greed and don’t like some of the business practices from Monsanato however they are not the only company that provides GM seeds. I dislike Monsanato but that is separate from GM foods. I haven’t taken a side on labeling even though I don’t see much point in it. As far as I am concerned if it can be done without creating a price hike on foods then they should do it.

As far as the food itself being unsafe well no one has remotely proven that. In fact I started a thread about Golden Rice and how it can save people in poor countries that die and go blind from vitamin A deficiency.

GM foods is one of the most studied fields out there with plenty of people wanting and funding research to prove they are unsafe yet I personally have not seen anything to be alarmed about. Feel free to post those studies in this thread if it exists. I just think the issue has been severely misrepresented.

Also just to cover one base.

All GM crops are tested against a database of all known allergens before commercialization and any crop found containing new allergens is not approved or marketed.

An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research.

So why wont monsanto employee's allow gmo poison in their canteens?

Sadly we have reached a point where providing links is almost meaningless because all sides have the ability to create their own version of truth.

I go with common sense, and my common sense tells me that natural food for a natural body is the way to go.

If you wanna eat that poison you go ahead and eat it.

Changing our food has consequences. We have to slowly change our diet over generations. We have done it too fast in the last couple of generations. New food chemistry should slowly be introduced. We rush things in the ratrace we live in and that is why incidents of cancer is up where the biggest changes occur. The people who are having increases in cancer seem to be the ones who started to change their genetic diet because they got more money now.

There has been no studies of long term effects of GMOs. None are required by the FDA either. There are no regulations governing long term effects. As long as people know this than it is all right. It takes a generation or two to show up most times, a generation is considered around 20 years. GM corn and soy is in most things today. Hydrolyzed Soy protein is a free glutamate similar to msg...it causes the same long term problems if over consumed. It is a food attractant, it can cause a decrease in the power up docking stations on the cells if over consumed. A little is good for us, a lot is not.

So what does this got to do with GMO, the same companies producing the seeds promote utilizing this chemistry and buffalo the corporations into putting it into their food. The Japanese identified umami as the fifth taste sense, but the right chemical is glutamates bound to protein so the body takes out what it needs. A little occasionally doesn't bother us though, Parmesan cheese is loaded with free glutamates. Occasionally it is good. We need to examine what is happening with these GMO foods that are being added to our diets. Soon everyone will be an overweight dummy from eating these.

I am looking at the big picture, sorry if I seem off topic OP. S&F

VoidHawk
So why wont monsanto employee's allow gmo poison in their canteens?



I go with common sense, and my common sense tells me that natural food for a natural body is the way to go.

Do you mean this back in 1999?

Back in 1999, a story by the UK press Independent reported:

...that Monsanto employees don't eat their very own GM (genetically modified) foods, in their High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire UK facility. .

Of the 1999 article, Greenpeace locked on to the news story, reportedly exposed by Friends of the Earth, was subsequently spread by the local and international media.
(no reference found on the FoE site)



"The firm running the canteen at Monsanto's pharmaceuticals factory at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, serves only GM-free meals, Friends of the Earth said. In a notice in the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by the Granada Group, said it had taken the decision "to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."


The notice was posted by the Sutcliffe Catering Group......not their employers, Monsanto.
That UK facility is now closed.


But let's look at the facts as described by the initial story.....
1) One Monsanto facility, in the UK, in 1999
2) The decision was posted by a contracted caterer, employed by Monsanto.
3) This story was never confirmed. (denied later)

Lately, the current anti-GMO activists have renewed (recycled) this story.
link

To me that article was a gross misrepresentation of what happened and my common sense tells me to actually look into claims to get the facts but some people like their hearse.

reply to post by rickymouse


I do not have a problem with their being more studies my two main complaints on the issue has been one Golden Rice would save lives but it is being blocked and two all the lies that the opposition uses.

Why do they have to lie and misrepresent the actual data? In the end if they ever really do find something inherently dangerous about GM foods a good portion of the populace will not listen to them. They have cried wolf to many times.

On the subject of golden rice maybe there are groups that see it as a way to keep the population from exploding there are like 650,000 deaths each year in developing nations due to a vitamin A deficiency and one of their main foods is rice but golden rice is blocked.

VoidHawk
So why wont monsanto employee's allow gmo poison in their canteens?

... the ability to create their own version of truth.

Like you've just done, with the false Monsanto canteen story.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Dandelion greens are high in vitamin A. They are also high in the plant version of vitamin K. I was under the impression that dandelions grew almost everywhere. If they don't exist in a place, then they could be planted there from seed and they will take over everyone's lawns. Sure dandelions can be a problem if over eaten but the nutrition value of them is unsurpassed.

Vitamin A is not a good reason to GM rice. It is a deception created by the inventors of the product. These types of deceptions have been going on for a very long time, it is nothing new. What we offer is better than what you have is not a viable argument when they are omitting the fact that educating the people a little can solve the problem. I am sure that there are other naturally growing low toxicity plants high in vitamin A all over the place. Well, if roundup is not sprayed all over.

There is a lot of deceit in this world. I see that everyone is parroting this deceit without researching it thoroughly and looking into alternative ways.

reply to post by rickymouse


You speak about people not researching the issue yet after reading your post it looks as though you yourself are the one in need of a bit of an education on the subject. Your assertion that they should eat dandelionsthan to taking into consideration the realitys of the regions this would benefit. Another poster said almost the same thing in the thread on Golden Rice except they simply said they should eat a more diversified diet. In western civilization that's easy but we are not talking about rich countries.

Just stop a secound a think for a moment as to why impoverished people would prefer and have more access to rice than other foods in developing nations. Let me ask you how long do dandelions keep? Will they fill your stomach. if you were on the verge of starvation which would you find easier to keep and carry with you?

Please take a moment and review the thread on Golden rice and try to remember that grocery stores are not on ever corner in developing nations nor does everyone have a fridge.

In many countries rice has been a main crop for many reasons including climate and geography. Golden Rice could have an immediate impact on those regions to save lives.

reply to post by Grimpachi


What is wrong with potatoes. They are more balanced than rice and easy to grow. China is using a lot more potatoes now because they have learned that potatoes are a better source of nutrition than rice. There is no long term proof that this golden rice is good for people. What about the occurance of future Phenylketonuria. If our bodies do not recognize the rice properly than it may not be good for us. A two year study is nothing. What is the antinutrient level of this rice, what are the phytate and phytic acid levels. Look at brown rice, they use it as a medicine in some cultures because of it's anti-nutrient levels. Does their testing test for everything. Are the nutrients in this rice actually bio-available to humans in a proper way? What about those with allergies, is five percent death acceptable? Well, five percent death from overeating any food long term is usual I suppose.

Even potatoes need to have companion foods when eaten, they need vitamin K. They also need butter or oleo. I will not believe research that has parameters on it without seeing evidence of testing outside the parameters.

Golden Rice may be all right, but any GMO product needs long term small population testing, not just a couple of years as an occasional addition. You are talking about making this a big part of people's diet in these countries that are poor, that is a big difference than eating it once a week. Ask the Chinese what they think of it, they have been eating rice for a long time.

They didn't like the testing done in China, here is a piece of an article...In December of last year, the Chinese government that it was punishing several China-based researchers who were involved in the study, removing them from their jobs. According to the government, the researchers didn't obtain proper approvals before carrying out the study. Here is the source. www.npr.org...

It sounds like deceit in telling people what they were eating was being used.

Have at it, eat all of the golden rice you want. Let me know how you feel in twenty years, then I may introduce it slowly into my diet. Or have you even eaten this rice yet....Would you actually eat this rice as thirty percent of your diet or do you just believe that the starving people should test it?

This is just a discussion, I do not have ill feelings because of your beliefs, I just do a lot of research on the problems associated with changing the diet too fast.

reply to post by rickymouse


I respect your opinion on the issue and I am glad you are open to golden rice being OK.

With potatoes I just looked it up and they don't seem to contain vitimine A. I also can't imagine them being farmable in many of those regions like rice.

Even though China is stereo typed as one of the countries this would greatly effect(maybe in some of the poorest regions) they actually have much better infrastructure than people think. I will read the link on their GM engineers but like most things it's probably more political than practical.

Here are some things on the rice.

It has been released for study more than 10 years.

They can replant it and it's liscenced for free.

Rice can be grown in areas that flood not many other crops can.

Rice can be stored for long periods of time.
-------

It's easy for us to say they should just eat something else but I am pretty sure that has been tried and suggested. I have traveled some of the countries this could help and it just seems foolish that something so simple that can save so many is being protested and influenced by groups that do not have science on their side and most do not even have a stake in it. It wouldn't affect them in the slightest because they live in the western world.

BTW I have looked for golden rice in the supermarket just the other day but couldn't find it maybe it goes by a different name. Vitimine enriched maybe? I need to look it up.

One other thing as far as allergies go I haven't found any information saying its a problem but in the OP the bottom quote says something on it.

reply to post by Grimpachi


The golden rice was modified for nutrition purposes. If something is modified for resistance to something, it gets a stronger plant defense system. This strengthening of the plants weapons is what usually makes it worse on a lot of people. We can't eat most of the plants growing in this world for any length of time because it's defense system will start to hurt us. Even if we are told we can eat something by others it doesn't mean we can eat it for long periods of time. Rice takes up arsenic. If you do not eat something like onions, garlic, or grapefruit when you eat it a lot, it can make you sick. People who use it as a staple usually consume the companion food. A chemical in an onion or garlic bind to the arsenic and take away rices ability to poison us. Onions and garlic also neutralize cyanide.

alfa1
Like you've just done, with the false Monsanto canteen story.

It hasn't been proven to be false, merely denied!
But as I said in my post, everyone can create there own truth these days, thats why I rarely take others word on anything, all I can really be sure of is that natural food is good for a natural body, because our bodies evolved over thousands of years to be healthy on such a diet. To think that a completely new strain of foods is going to be just fine is foolhardy to say the least.

reply to post by VoidHawk


You are just recycling the same old crap from a 1999 article and misrepresenting the facts.
Why don't you mention it was a catering group and not monsanato itself? Lies and misrepresentation of the info the only tool you have?