You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Friday, October 24, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Genetic Engineers Explain Why GE Food Is Dangerous

Eco Watch / Op-Ed
Published: Sunday 24 June 2012
One of the report’s authors, Dr. Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.
Article image

Aren’t critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn’t the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A report released June 17, GMO Myths and Truths, challenges these claims. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms.

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers, who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods and crops.

One of the report’s authors, Dr. Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.

“GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims—that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides and can help solve world hunger,” said Dr. Antoniou. “I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.”

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation,” Antoniou said. “They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”

Another author of the report, Dr. John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequently founded a GMO testing company.

“Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise and outmoded technology,” said Dr. Fagan. “It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM.”

“Over 75 percent of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide,” Fagan said. “This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant super weeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer. These findings fundamentally challenge the utility and safety of GM crops, but the biotech industry uses its influence to block research by independent scientists and uses its powerful PR machine to discredit independent scientists whose findings challenge this approach.”

The third author of the report, Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source, said, “The GM industry is trying to change our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to inform ourselves about what is going on and ensure that we—not biotechnology companies—keep control of our food system and crop seeds.”

“We hope our report will contribute to a broader understanding of GM crops and the sustainable alternatives that are already working successfully for farmers and communities,” Robinson added.

Key Points from the Report:

1. Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise or predictable and has not been shown to be safe. The technique can result in the unexpected production of toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.

2. GM crops, including some that are already in our food and animal feed supply, have shown clear signs of toxicity in animal feeding trials—notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.

3. GM proponents have dismissed these statistically significant findings as “not biologically relevant/significant,” based on scientifically indefensible arguments.

4. Certain EU-commissioned animal feeding trials with GM foods and crops are often claimed by GM proponents to show they are safe. In fact, examination of these studies shows significant differences between the GM-fed and control animals that give cause for concern.

5. GM foods have not been properly tested in humans, but the few studies that have been carried out in humans give cause for concern.

6. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require mandatory safety testing of GM crops, and does not even assess the safety of GM crops but only “deregulates” them, based on assurances from biotech companies that they are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts. This is like claiming that a cow with BSE is substantially equivalent to a cow that does not have BSE and is thus safe to eat. Claims of substantial equivalence cannot be justified on scientific grounds.

7. The regulatory regime for GM foods is weakest in the U.S., where GM foods do not even have to be assessed for safety or labeled in the marketplace, but in most regions of the world regulations are inadequate to protect people’s health from the potential adverse effects of GM foods.

8. In the EU, where the regulatory system is often claimed to be strict, minimal pre-market testing is required for a GMO and the tests are commissioned by the same companies that stand to profit from the GMO if it is approved—a clear conflict of interest.

9. No long-term toxicological testing of GMOs on animals or testing on humans is required by any regulatory agency in the world.

10. Biotech companies have used patent claims and intellectual property protection laws to restrict access of independent researchers to GM crops for research purposes. As a result, limited research has been conducted on GM foods and crops by scientists who are independent of the GM industry. Scientists whose work has raised concerns about the safety of GMOs have been attacked and discredited in orchestrated campaigns by GM crop promoters.

11. Most GM crops (more than 75 percent) are engineered to tolerate applications of herbicides. Where such GM crops have been adopted, they have led to massive increases in herbicide use.

12. Roundup, the herbicide that more than 50 percent of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate, is not safe or benign as has been claimed but has been found to cause malformations (birth defects), reproductive problems, DNA damage and cancer in test animals. Human epidemiological studies have found an association between Roundup exposure and miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage and certain types of cancer.

13. A public health crisis has erupted in GM soy-producing regions of South America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and other agrochemicals sprayed on the crop report escalating rates of birth defects and cancer.

14. A large number of studies indicate that Roundup is associated with increased crop diseases, especially infection with Fusarium, a fungus that causes wilt disease in soy and can have toxic effects on humans and livestock.

15. Bt insecticidal GM crops do not sustainably reduce pesticide use but change the way in which pesticides are used: from sprayed on, to built in.

16. Bt technology is proving unsustainable as pests evolve resistance to the toxin and secondary pest infestations are becoming common.

17. GM proponents claim that the Bt toxin engineered into GM plants is safe because the natural form of Bt, long used as a spray by conventional and organic farmers, has a history of safe use. But the GM forms of Bt toxins are different from the natural forms and could have different toxic and allergenic effects.

18. GM Bt toxin is not limited in its toxicity to insect pests. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials.

19. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on non-target organisms in the environment.

20. Bt toxin is not fully broken down in digestion and has been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supply to their fetuses.

21. The no-till method of farming promoted with GM herbicide-tolerant crops, which avoids ploughing and uses herbicides to control weeds, is not more climate-friendly than ploughing. No-till fields do not store more carbon in the soil than ploughed fields when deeper levels of soil are measured.

22. No-till increases the negative environmental impacts of soy cultivation, because of the herbicides used.

23. Golden Rice, a beta-carotene-enriched rice, is promoted as a GM crop that could help malnourished people overcome vitamin A deficiency. But Golden Rice has not been tested for toxicological safety, has been plagued by basic development problems, and, after more than 12 years and millions of dollars of research funding, is still not ready for the market. Meanwhile, inexpensive and effective solutions to vitamin A deficiency are available but under-used due to lack of funding.

24. GM crops are often promoted as a “vital tool in the toolbox” to feed the world’s growing population, but many experts question the contribution they could make, as they do not offer higher yields or cope better with drought than non-GM crops. Most GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides or to contain a pesticide—traits that are irrelevant to feeding the hungry.

25. High adoption of GM crops among farmers is not a sign that the GM crop is superior to non-GM varieties, as once GM companies gain control of the seed market, they withdraw non-GM seed varieties from the market. The notion of “farmer choice” does not apply in this situation.

26. GM contamination of non-GM and organic crops has resulted in massive financial losses by the food and feed industry, involving product recalls, lawsuits, and lost markets.

27. When many people read about high yielding, pest- and disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and nutritionally improved super-crops, they think of GM. In fact, these are all products of conventional breeding, which continues to outstrip GM in producing such crops. The report contains a long list of these conventional crop breeding successes.

28. Certain “supercrops” have been claimed to be GM successes when in fact they are products of conventional breeding, in some cases assisted by the non-GM biotechnology of marker assisted selection.

29. Conventional plant breeding, with the help of non-GM biotechnologies such as marker assisted selection, is a safer and more powerful method than GM to produce new crop varieties required to meet current and future needs of food production, especially in the face of rapid climate change.

30. Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with agro ecological farming practices, offer a proven, sustainable approach to ensuring global food security.



GM foods have been consumed

GM foods have been consumed around the world for a number on years now and not one illness related to eating a GM food has been documented.

Well, explain to everyone how

Well, explain to everyone how you can document a case of illness due to GM food when you have no idea you're eating GM food. Most people have no idea if they're eating something with GM ingredients. When there is no labeling of GM products, you can never know for sure unless you eat certified organic foods. So, how would you know? There are no "documented" cases of anything until it is isolated, identified, and studied. None of which has ever been done with GM foods. Despite what you think.

I'm not even one of the people opposed to GM foods due to potential health threats. However, the falsehood of your logic needed to be pointed out.

A new panacea to make money

A new panacea to make money and fund with charitable donations and dump on Africa for live testing... the human race has to fix everything in the world and if we don't fix it it isn't any good. Live test on oursleves also no problem until it shows up down the line a bit... Our entire civilizatgion is into live testing because it is cheaper and makes money until proven unsafe. Creating new sub professions for elite pay is the major motivation because we can't support all the priesthoods we are creating without creating new innovations just for the sake of adding new expenses to life.

Well all I want to ask is did

Well all I want to ask is did you hear about the Tornado that hit Monsanto's plant & took out ALL the buildings? Interesting how fast that bit of news has disappeared. It was a Warning from God -- and hey, I'm not kidding. The Police showed up at one of Monsanto's Christian Seed Engineers, who told his Team to Repent. The tornado jumped over his house and took off 50 miles down the road to hit Monsanto. They don't WANT you to KNOW how powerful each one of us really is. Prayer works.
I'll stick to upping my spiritualiy and hope I have money enough to retire, and 1% of that $23M ...230K in my 401K would be good enough for me. I wonder what these Elite BOD people think -- you CANT take any of this $tuff with you. I just hope the Planet and good old mother nature can survive our mucking around the kitchen sink.

A lot of good points rose in

A lot of good points rose in the discussion, but no one raised my issue, our understanding of the bacterial and fungi world that all life depends on is minuscule. We barely know anything about the bacterial environment we call our bodies, let alone that of plants and animals in general or the environment. It will be a long time before we have an understanding of their interdependencies. It is a certainty the mistakes will be made with significant tragedies. Companies like Monsanto have large assets, but negligible compared to the damages one of these tragedies is likely to cause and like the financial debacle; the government will be responsible for cleaning up the mess made by companies that have pocketed their profits.
We need the benefits GM can deliver to society, but we need to advance with caution. “If you try to run too fast in the dark woods at night, you will surly hurt yourself.”

Excellent points, RICH

Excellent points, RICH NAU

Especially, to me of course, that concerning fungi.

The effects on the mycological communities are probably those that should be of the greatest concern. Even though we know only a tiny fraction of what we would be wise to know about fungi, we know enough to suspect that the world-wide fungal web may be essential to all life (at least terrrestrial) on the planet, and fungi may hold the keys to our rescue from many of the negative consequences of our "civilized" behaviors.

@ Kevin Folta. You mention

@ Kevin Folta. You mention all the research not quoted by the anti-GMO crowd, but neglect to mention that there have NEVER been long term studies which would prove safety. Instead, independent researchers have proved again and again that the GMOs are not necessarily safe, have not performed as predicted, are NOT (blatantly) a solution to insect or plant pests, (since the problems keep getting worse) and offer NO solutions to problems which non-GMO plants provide, and provide better.

There is of course the Monsanto corn study which proves (from Monsanto's own proverbial mouth) that Bt corn IS damaging. In multiple ways. It also shows lack of scientific vigor in determining that differences in damages caused by gender imply hormonal effects which would (in an inquiring mind) initiate other gender specific, hormonal studies. Hormone disruption frequently leads to several varieties of cancer like cervical, breast, uterine, and prostate, but without long term studies you can't prove that these issues do not occur down the line, or prove that they do NOT happen.

It may also account for the increased sterility and other hormonal issues seen in various studies.

The GMO industry quotes alleged farm data without sources. This is supposed to be science? The industry keeps saying, "we have proof that this is all safe, but we can't show you because you're going to take your blender and spatula and duplicate our GMO patents". That is not showing any evidence either, and i'll tell you what, if you automatically believe the opinion of an industry which makes Billions of dollars in profits because their products are sold, versus an independent person whose conclusions vary from that obvious economic conflict of interest, then you need to learn some critical thinking skills. Sorry, that is harsh, but why automatically trust a corporation with a history of murdering people?

We also need to look at the

We also need to look at the broader picture and not just the safety aspects of GM food (or lack of). "Seeds of Destruction" by William Engdahl explains much to those interested in background information relating to deregulation. To say I was worried by the comment made yesterday at 6.48 pm would be an understatement. Something is seriously wrong with humanity's common sense, our education systems and University structures and much much more.

Further links for debate:

http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/impact.html
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-... http://www.seattleglobaljustice.org/agra-watch/
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

and anyone who has the time can follow up:
http://www.grain.org/article/entries/128-the-soils-of-war
http://www.ifg.org/analysis/globalization/ambition.htm

Thank you :-)

Re items on minimum tillage

Re items on minimum tillage and stored organic matter in soil. Not sure where you got your information from. It is totally at odds to 50 years of agricultural research.

In one cultivation sequence for a cereal crop in some soils I worked with the soil researchers reported a 60% loss of organic matter. Low rainfall sandy soils.

Total organic matter levels increased in No/Min tillage in these areas. However the maximum amount of label organic carbon (not charcoal) is determine by the growing potential on the site. Less cultivation improved the availability of the limited rainfall moisture so crop yields increased.

We also cut our tractor hours by a factor of 5 to plant the crop, and the actual power requirements for the hours used are lower.

Likewise, in higher rainfall very good clay soils in Tasmania, growing potato's the organic carbon content dropped from > 20% after pasture to about 8-9%. Soil structure collapsed with trafficability problems and crop yield decline. Rotation back to pasture solves the problem till next time.

Be very careful writing such articles with out talking to the researchers and field extension people who actually developed and measured the results of such work. Monsanto only became a participant of this work after it had been developed by other non USA companies and Government workers with non Monsanto developed herbicides.

I agree with the issue of testing GMO's for safety. Yet you also need to demand that similar tests be carried out on so called normal crops for problems. That should also include the levels of trace elements, too little/too much can cause problems, just talk to any animal workers in low trace element areas.

Thanks to CITIZEN7 One reason

Thanks to CITIZEN7
One reason for my thanks is that s/he provided some of the kind of argument that KEVINFOLTA has written was lacking in this forum.
I look forward to K's reply to it. I expect it to be illustrative.

Sorry to differ with you,

Sorry to differ with you, Kevinfolta, but as a fellow UF alum (I'm assuming you are) I would refer people to the article by Stephen R. Palumbi, Harvard professor of biology, "The High-Stakes Battle Over Brute-Force Genetic Engineering," in the Chronicle of Higher Education, April 13, 2001, for an overview of the topic aimed at a broadly educated audience. Genetic engineering "differs enormously from evolution by selection," natural or human-controlled. "Engineering focuses on understanding the single genetic mechanism that controls a desired change," not the complex set of regulatory genes needed to implement it; it does not look at "whole-organism success," let alone whole-ecosystem appropriateness. When foreign genetic material is introduced forcefully, by a "gene gun," for example--and I have observed such manipulation myself, in the lab--it is very expensive, and the few organisms obtained with the desired trait are not often scrutinized for untoward effects and discarded, as they should be. We have very little control over where in the recipient DNA an added gene inserts--witness the gene therapy treatment for SCID, once touted as a great success, that had to be halted when several treated children developed leukemia, possibly due to an insertion disabling another gene necessary for expunging incipient cancers, possibly an effect of the retroviral vector being used in many experiments of the same type and thus bringing the safety of all of them into question.

Why is GE food potentially dangerous? Because new DNA sequences can generate new proteins, unusual at the level of primary structure--the sequence of component amino acids that are joined together--which can in turn produce all kinds of abnormalities at the tertiary level, the three-dimensional structure that results when the linear chain folds upon itself in complex ways, which determines its functionality. Thanks to BSE--"mad cow disease"--we have learned that the proteins we ingest do not get broken down entirely in the process of digestion and absorption, and we have learned that proteins abnormal in their 3-D structure can be pathogenic--in the case of BSE, causing irreversibly fatal brain deterioration--and even infectious. Thus they are NOT necessarily "substantially equivalent" to the naturally occurring proteins in the food our human ancestors have eaten for millennia. As the article says, to claim otherwise on the basis that "protein is protein" is "like claiming that a cow with BSE is substantially equivalent to a cow that does not have BSE and is thus safe to eat."

There is a growing body of "science-based" research that is showing the many ways GMOs are potentially harmful to our health and our environment. For one example, check out "New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity," by Gilles-Eric Seralini et al, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2007--a reassessment of the findings of Monsanto's own scientists made possible only when the data were obtained by court order. (You also might want to check out Marie-Monique Robin's 2010 book, The World According to Monsanto, where the shaky origins of the concept of "substantial equivalence" are examined in detail.)

Yes, there are many scientists still in the thrall of Monsanto and other corporate biotech firms who will issue shrill cries against any evidence of untoward effects of these products as "unscientific" because it challenges their faith in a very narrow version of science as unfettered manipulation of a passive and mechanistic material "nature"--witness the repeated studies needed to show that our thousands of acres of Bt corn are harmful to monarch butterfly populations, and that yes, transgenes from (wind-pollinated) Bt corn spread easily and have even contaminated the Mexican heartland where maize originated, studies that can be found in the pages of mainline journals such as Science and Nature. The fact is that our science has moved on beyond the mechanistic approach to achieve a new understanding that embraces the complexity of all living organisms, including that of our own bodies, and is now beginning to document a growing number of unexpected consequences from the processes we have already set in motion.

BTW, readers of this article might also want to look a little more closely into issues raised by nanotechnology--such as whether or not your sunscreen is formulated using nanoparticles. Take a look at "Titanium Dioxide (P25) Produces Reactive Oxygen Species in Immortalized Brain Microglia (BV2): Implications for Nanoparticle Neurotoxicity," Thomas C. Long et al., Environmental Science & Technology, 2006, for starters. The evidence is out there--most people just want to stay in that comfortable shell of denial!

@KEVINFOLTA Dutchss's support

@KEVINFOLTA

Dutchss's support of your "lucid response"s does you no service. As a serial entrepreneur who has served the public for 32 years without contractual ownership of the fruits of any of my pioneering labors, and has no retirement funds, I know the difference between corporate good and evil -- and Dutchss either is unobservant or has a serious blind eye. Concurrence of your opinions on the GMO industry from such a quarter is, in your words, is "same old arguments, same old story."

If I were, instead, wealthy or a public employee with a future pension and current access to facilities, I would take you up on your challenge regarding #29 and #10. I think it would be quite interesting to see what the experiences would lead you then to report.

In fact, I'd up the anty and challenge you on all 30. Not because of bravado, nor because I already know what all the outcomes would be (I do not), but because it could serve the GMO debate in a way that has heretofore been lacking.

I have heard directly from (USA) Center for Food Safety attorneys, in private conversations, about #10, and their stories are not congruent with your dismission of concern. My hypothesis on that might be that it depends on what traits and what research on them one seeks, and who has control over the use of the results.

On #29, I'd first insist that whatever "trait" we were racing with was truly a trait that would matter to the goals noble to the end of significantly addressing public health and well-being.

Because, I have to note, you claim that "most of the claims . . . are easily answered with peer-reviewed science," but you once again have avoided making specific response to the claims that the vast majority of GMO plant production does NOT contribute to the health and well-being of publics, and thus have bolstered the flavor of your opinion as being akin to Dutchss's.

C'mon, man. I want to hear, from a self-intimated "left-leaning environmental . . . hard-working plant scientist . . . that care(s) about social inequity and food security (and does not) fear biotech or accept substandard evidence", just what s/he thinks about how well the biotech industry is addressing social inequity and food security, and how much validity there is (or not) to the claims of its critics that the vast majority of the results of application of the technologies to livestock feed and more direct human food production is mega corporate profits at the expense of social inequity and food security.

Do you have no concerns about #7? Do you disagree with it?

@Duchss: The FDA has allowed

@Duchss: The FDA has allowed Monsanto (the most egregious violator) to get away with insufficient testing before putting their products on the market. We are dealing with too many unknowns. Monsanto has poisoned millions of acres of valuable cropland throughout the world. This destruction is irreversible.

Kudos and thanks to you in

Kudos and thanks to you in Gainesville. Lucid response to the vagaries above... not a single biological specific, nor demonstrable GMO danger revealed. The non scientific overreaction, here and at other similar sites greats a paronia that's as bad as the percieved evil of corporate greed...

So, if GMO's are so safe why

So, if GMO's are so safe why are Monsanto and Dow and Bayer spending millions to stop the movement to label them? Why are India and Brazil suing them for the damage they have done to their agriculture? It is well known that an ever more toxic stew is required to keep up with the adaptation of weeds and insect pests, and these are not incorporated into the seed, they are sprayed and endanger water supply, air quality and the farmers and residents that live near, not to mention that the cost ruins many farmers. It is not just the possibility they are not safe for consumption, but the business practices of these companies that put the full force of their ample coffers to bully farmers into using their products or be put out of business.

IF IT WORKS DON'T FIX IT!

IF IT WORKS DON'T FIX IT! Mother Nature has done more than an adequate job in providing the planet with it's sustenance and toying around with it is a complete waste of time and resources, not to mention potentially destructive and dangerous. We have more food than we know what to do with. In fact we throw more than enough of it in trash cans (to protect profits) than is needed to feed the world. Farmers are paid to plow their crops under if the price isn't right. We eat more than is healthy for us as attested to by our diabetes plague and the number of grossly overweight Americans who suffer from a multitude of obesity related diseases.

GMO's like Fossil fuels are bad for us and threaten our very existence. GMO's and fossil fuels need to be dumped into the trash heap of history and send a message to those who profit from it to put their money into something that benefits our species rather than destroys it.

It also is interesting to

It also is interesting to note that the same three non-plant scientists can be so convincing to NOC readers, yet actual public, independent plant scientists and biotech experts are rapidly dismissed. You are trusting the wrong "experts". They should ask me, or any one of thousands of hard-working plant scientists what they think. We're mostly left-leaning environmental types that care about social inequity and food security-- but we don't fear biotech or accept substandard evidence of harm.

I am interested in

I am interested in biotechnology and am currently in a training program to become a lab tech. I am wondering if as a plant scientist you have done any studies regarding the long term effects of GMO's on humans ? If not do you know of any? I have to assume that you do know of these good scientific studies since you don't accept substandard evidence of harm, i am sure you would not accept any substandard evidence of the safety of GM food as well.

Also if the claims that, " The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require mandatory safety testing of GM crops, and does not even assess the safety of GM crops but only “deregulates” them, based on assurances from biotech companies that they are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts" is true and that "no long term testing is even being required " , is also true , that would mean that our government has been corrupted by the biotech lobbyists, ( no big surprise there) and we are all being used as to be the long term study group.

You also asked why so many people easily believe three non-plant scientists? It is probably because we all know our government has been bought and that many agencies are being "regulated" by people that come from the industries they are supposed to be watching over for the people in order to keep them safe, but are there DE-regulating or not enforcing current laws and or policies in order to raise profits for themselves. I am surprised you would even have to ask that question but I guess you have been working so hard with your plants you didn't notice that most of the worlds governments are now either slaves to or puppets of the banks and large multinational corporations one of which is Monsanto. By the way who do you work for as a plant scientist?

Same old arguments, same old

Same old arguments, same old story. The people that wrote this are the same that brought many other documents and un-authored work. Most of the claims above are easily answered with peer-reviewed science.

Most of all, they don't do what the title says, "Explain Why GE Food is Dangerous". Why is it dangerous? What are the precise mechanisms that it uses to inflict danger? You' d think if it was real that there would be literally thousands of articles in the best journals on the subject. But no. 1990's reports from obscure labs in tiny journals-- that Antoniou et al hold up as gospel (it sells books).

As always, I'm glad to discuss any of the above points from a science-based perspective. Just contact me. Thanks to those of you that have, it has been a pleasure to help you understand facts from fantasy.

...Just for fun, I'll challenge anyone to race me on #29. Let's put a trait in apples. I'll use GE you use conventional breeding. I can be done in five years. You can be done in 20 if you work fast.
... and anyone feeling that they are barred from access to GE seeds for research, you can get them. I can have them FedEx'd her tomorrow. Don't fall for that line, it is a cop out. Plus, you can have any gene installed into corn through a variety of services for under $1K. If you want to do the research, quit whining and do it.

Kevinfolta The lack of

Kevinfolta
The lack of precision and the lack of interest in precision is the problem. The past issues with birth control pills stands as a stark example of why we can not trust the greedy corporations and the imprecise scientists. When scientists think they are producing a product that is a appearance or taste improvement without concern for the safety of its consumption they are being negligent and reckless. When they defend their position out of arrogance they become even more unreliable and when it backfires on the human race they become people who should be behind bars. Your arrogance and careless attitude toward food safety is not only without morals or ethics but labels you as a true scoundrel

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...