GMOs = The Smart Future of Food

Many of us have strong feelings when it comes to Monsanto and other Agricultural Biotechnology companies (DuPont, Syngenta, etc.), especially with the media coverage of these companies in recent times. However, while many ethics issues could be researched with these companies, I would like to focus this topic on the safety, efficacy, and benefits that can come from genetically modified foods, especially with the recent surge in anti-GMO individuals that have begun to be heard.I came into this argument with only my view of Monsanto to guide me, and trust me I was biased against this company because of their business practices (many of these practices I have recently found out are alleged, and most likely not true). However, I decided that looking at the science was the way to truly judge these companies.One site I find that grants information on the peer-reviewed journal articles that defend the GMO industry was: BioFortifiedOn their site, they are currently working toward cataloging all the papers that support the Genetic Modification industry. As of this day, they have over 600 papers listed in their GENERA project and will continue to add more as time progresses. The overall literature has approximately 3,000 papers justifying the safety of these food products to be given to humanity and animals as food.
One major argument against the increase in genetically modified foods is the supposed increase in pesticide use for GMO plants. However, much of the increase in pesticide use can be attributed to two other causes. The first reason is farmers who do not understand that they can use less of the conventional sprays and overspray their crops. The other major contributor to the increase in pesticides is actually the Organic food industry. According to Joe Ballenger, to my surprise, I found that organic operations actually increase the amount of inputs put into the environment by requiring higher concentrations and more frequent applications of pesticides. SourceIn fact, even Penn and Teller have taken the organic industry to task on their show Bullshit for the fact that they are increasing their market share through fear-mongering and propaganda. One interesting fact is the current standing of Whole Foods versus Organic’s demon Monsanto in the Forbes top 500 list for 2013. Both of these companies stand relatively near one another in the rankings, with Monsanto being number 206 and Whole Foods is number 232. Penn and Teller Bullshit: Organic FarmingSourceFinally, I feel that the Anti-GMO groups are doing a disservice to our worldwide community by forcefully stopping introduction of crops such as Golden Rice, which can reduce blindness due to Vitamin A deficiency, into regions like Southeast Asia. Vitamin A deficiency leads to approximately 500,000 cases of blindness a year worldwide. Golden Rice is genetically modified to contain Beta-Carotene, which breaks down in the body to vitamin A. Source: Cases of blindnessSource: Golden RiceMy major point is that these products, while not guaranteed to be safe, have a process for checking safety and that the GMOs that have been released to the public at this time have stood up to scientific scrutiny. Minimal problems have been discovered from the introduction of GMOs over twenty years ago, enough so that the EU is considering removing the ban in place on these products. GMOs are a means to feeding an ever growing human population and to providing nutrition to individuals worldwide who would go without certain nutrients otherwise. GMOs=Good and a bright future for humanity.

This is a statement I am in full agreement with. I feel that the patent laws were not written with the intention of living organisms in mind and so patent laws, in regards to seeds, should be looked into on a legislative level. However, I do think that the situation of copyright infringment is blown out of proportion by the individuals on the anti-GMO side. From what I can find, since 1997 Monsanto has brought lawsuits against 144 different farmers, which is a paltry .05% of those individuals who purchase seeds from Monsanto. Of the cases that actually went to trial, all defendants were found to have a percentage of their crop Round Up Ready that was too large for accidental exposure of the field. In fact, in one recent case the farmer admitted to knowingly attempting to scam the system because he did not want to pay the prices for late season seed. SourceSource: Monsanto Defeats Small Farmers in Critical Bioethics Class Action SuitRisky resource from the belly of the beast: Monsanto

Well, my message above to nwr talks about the patent issue, which I agree needs some updating. Although many of the lawsuits have been for an actual breach of contract, so that is an important factor to bear in mind. not only will the corporation do what it can to protect its interests, but why would we assume all farmers are not trying to gain a little extra through underhanded ideas, such as the mention in Forbes about the farmer knowingly using seed he was aware was not for planting.However, on the safety issue, I think we can begin to look at some of the information offered, especially with the misinformation that has been placed out there. I am in full agreement that independent testing must be done on these products to ensure safety. However, it is a misinformation campaign that convinces you that no peer reviewed research has been done on GM products from indepentdent groups.Just from the biofortified site, they have a list of 126 independent studies that have been performed on the efficacy of GMOs in our food supply. SourceThe groups that claim that no independent studies have been conducted follow a very similar pattern to many of the creationist arguments we see occur on this website where you can find the same information plastered across all the different outlets the moment it is stated by one group.The European Union forked over 200 million Euros to consuct further testing on GMO products because of their reserved attitude toward accepting this new technology and returned with the results that: SourceI agree that incidental contamination should not be a punishable offense, and according to the cases that have actually been discussed in this arena, it was not accidental contamination, but willful disobedience of a contractual obligation. While the legislation should be fixed, until it is it does not grant farmers rights to disobey the laws as currently written, just like it should not allow Monsanto to sue a farmer with only 5% contamination in his or her fields. If you have an example that you would like to discuss, I am sure we can look into the facts of the case and determine if the farmer was in the wrong (I will say that Monsanto is undefeated in court, not that this means anything really). Agreed, our population is growing too quickly to maintain with only conventional methods. The one that really upsets me is the stalling on Golden Rice, which can save countless lives.

I am not sure that they wish you to remain ignorant for your own good. From my understanding it is cost-prohibitive (not to Monsanto, but to the farmers) to introduce GMO labeling into the system. Monsanto, as a argricultural firm, is not responsible for the actual growing of any of the products that develop from their seeds. These are sold to seed breeders, who combine these seeds to create hybrids which are sold to the farmers. This means that it would be Monsanto's responsiblity to add infrastructure to the existing system to house GM corn separate from conventional in the massive holding bins that farmers tends to use.[I have a resource for this, but I am currently attempting to find it. I will add it once I have located it]
Actually, after further reading I was incorrect on them only posting the positive studies. Biofortified is attempting to gather all the relevant information into their GENERA database, both positive and negative. The interesting thing is the actual number of positive studies when compared to the negative...1/3 of which come from independent sources! I am assuming that you are referencing the Bt Toxin in Monsanto's Corn and Cotton, if I am correct? An interesting aspect of Bt is that it is very damaging to specific organisms and not damaging at all to others. According to the university of California: San Diego: In the Corn product, the Bt Toxin is specified to react to receptors in the guts of the European Corn Borer and Corn Rootworm. There are some small issues when another insect is very closely related to the target species. The Monarch Butterfly has a low risk of damage from Bt transgenics. However, the toxins are not known to be damaging to humans are non-pest species. SourceThe increase in use of pesticides in organics is something that is relatively known and has to do with two specific items you mentioned, which I bolded. You even know that these pesticides are less effective, so they require an increase in the number of applications that are used to create the final product. With GMOs, the amount used can be reduced because of naturally occuring defenses that have been granted to the plant. These toxins, such as Bt, must be shown to be safe before introduction into the food system. Here is a test that was performed independently of BigAg which showed no damage to the testes through a Bt Toxin corn diet: SourceThis study is making a statement that there is no reproductive damage caused to mice from the ingestion of Bt Corn. This is an interesting concern, especially because even cross contamination from GM fields is thought to be approximately .5-2% of a current crop. At this rate, with humans still selecting it seems unlikely that the crops will be fully evolved out of competition. However, I do agree that this is a concern that should be researched more fully. However, even if this is the case this is not justification for labeling, banishment, or any other strong response that the anti-GMO crowd attempts to place on trangenic crops. Well, nice example of an attacking the source, rather than the information. While Penn (not so much Teller because of his lack of talking) does rely very heavily on hyperbole, the information is presented with evidential support that the main arguments of organics (more nutritious, better for the environment, etc...)are not true. Please deal with the substance of the argument, not the source as this is posted simply as a jumping off point for someone who dreads wading into these highly contentious waters. It allows people to watch it in a humorous way first before tackling the subject seriously. But, this may be the case with the ever increasing population in the world. Will the first world be the first to suffer from this fate? That would not be my assumption, but it would affect the lower income workers if all food must go through extra steps that create extra cost on food suppliers. Sadly, I don't think the companies will take the hit without passing some of the damage on to the public. You took that as something different than the intended point I was trying to get across and for that i take the blame. I was obviously not clear enough. The reason I point out the Forbes rating of Monsanto and Whole Foods is the classic Anti-GMO argument of Big business does not have your best interests at heart. It is funny to hear this argument made against Monsanto by individuals who then proceed to shop through another big business. It makes their argument weaker because they too support big business. We currently only use 8 different GM products in the United States (and we are the highest producer of these products). The aspects you are discussing, taste, shippable, and look are designed not through genetic modification (they are not transgenics) but through conventional plant breeding methods. Do I agree that a tomato, for instance, purchased from the store is less flavorful than an heirloom tomato, yes! And I feel that heirloom varities have a place in our marketplace at a higher price. Organic producers will use several of these same varities in the growing of their products as well. Monoculture is never going to happen because we require far too many different types of produce, althogh items like corn and soy will continue to get large fields allocated to them because their uses are so widespread, which has been the case even before GMos were introduced into agriculture. SourceA funny aside: Round Up Ready, while always discussed as a GMO, was not actually made through genetic manipulation outside of conventional breeding techniques. Monsanto used artificial selection to create a strain more resistant to a poison that is extremely effective against weeds. I agree that Monsanto should be more willing to share their research and create an open access type location for journal information showing the safety of their products. However, this goes onto the business side, which is something I have not completely made up my mind about. Also, just because Monsanto does not offer this transparancy does not mean Americans do not have access to the information. This information is published in different journals throughout the world. We get upset in this forum when people do not take the time to read through the journal articles regarding evolution, but can't expect the same thing from them in regards to the products they actually ingest? I think the science is as settled as it will be for now, although like any good science minded person, should differing information come to light I will gladly take it in and see how my views should change. As for the heavy handed efforts, I am starting to realize that several of the stories about monsanto attacking small farms are built up solely out of propaganda. I mean, we live in a country where Fox News is calling a man a patriot and a freedom fighter because he refuses to pay the grazing fees that every other rancher has to pay....how do we know the small farmers aren't the same. In my message to frako I posted about the Indiana who admits to breaking the licensing agreement because he thought it would save him money. Overview of last ten years of genetically engineered crop researchEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Agreed, my fault for confusing the terms. I did mean to refer to it as patent infringement. I will ensure to use the proper term from now on. I agree that the amount of force used through the contractual obligations of the farmer is an area of law that should be researched and possibly have changes made. However, this does not speak to the safety, efficacy, or danger of GM Foods. This gets into the area of business, which is a different beast and one that I feel would deserve its own separate thread apart from the actual "health" issues of GMOs. As it stands, I do agree with Monsanto's need to recoup costs of developing the technology, which is a process that can take several years and cost millions of dollars. However, I think that limits are definitely an area that should be looked into to provide protection for the farmers, especially in times of bad production. Okay, so there are differences between the products, which would require looking into the patent laws as they apply to genetically modified crops. But, this does not affect the scientific standing on the safety and efficacy of these products. Also, you say other industries (and I could be wrong here, so please correct me if so), but isn't Software another area where patents cover downstream production? I thought that was the impetus for the creation of opensource software, but again, please correct me if I am wrong. Finally on this point, I wil state that I agree the business aspect must be something that is confronted, because now we are dealing with patents on living, evolving organisms, a topic that while considered in 1930, was not considered with respect to being able to manipulate the genome. And here is an area where farmers should focus their fight...the bad years. How can Monsanto be controlled in situations where the crops did not produce the yield that was anticipated. Monsanto should be allowed to recoup R&D costs, but not at the expense of the individuals being forced from the marketplace. Infact, in America because of the ability to reduce disease and other pathogens, most farmers do not reuse seed, whether growing conventional crops or GMOs, so all groups would be hit similarly by a bad growing year, not only GMO farmers. The reason not reusing seed reduces disease is because the seeds are from "true breeded" plants. These hybrids are closer to the two original parent varities and will grow consistently. Also, conventional crops are less drought resistant than GMO crops and will face more difficult years that GM crops can still get a yield during. SourceI would need some more information on the horrow stories you are discussing here. In regards to India, my guess is that you are referring to the increase in Farmer suicides that have occurred. However, it is important to note that the individual who ran that report did not control for other factors and did not consider other culprits, such as a change in the banking system in India during the same time. Areas that were most hit with the suicide rate increase were also areas where the new international banks were not as likely to give loans to small farmers, forcing them to take private loans with an up to 45% interest rate. SourceAs for Iraq, it appears that a majority of their crops are non-GM products as of 2008, so i would need a little more information to gain any insight and research your claim a bit more. Order 81 was simply adjusting a preexisting document to include breeder's rights, which is in existence in several other countries n the region and nothing new. if this is not your point, if you could clarify I will see what else I can find. Source

Percy Schmeiser thought he could get away with gaining the benefits of a patented product without paying the rights. Taking the gentleman to court is no different from what any other multinational corporation would have done. He intentionally took patented material once he realized the benefit he could receive from the product. Should accidental crops be protected, of course. If someone has an accidental amount blown onto their field then definitely they should not be sued for the trace amounts. However, Percy knowingly replanted the crops. One could say that he had to because he was a seed saver, but each canola plant can get a farmer upwards of 80 new plants, there was no requirement that he should choose to replant the patented product instead of seeds from the non-contaminated segments of his field.As for your comment on the cost being added to the farmers for labeling, as I said I have a source but it is proving difficult to find again through all the anti-stuff that instantly comes up on Google (Knew I should've saved the link). Give me a bit and it will explain better than I can, from a farmer's perspective, how the cost will go up for their operations.

As GMOs are currently listed as safe within the academic research, what should one say about a large company using scare tactics to convince people they are cruel to their families by feeding them GMOs, therefore increasing the overall market segment of the organic industry? Assuming for the sake of debate that monsanto was correct, the independent studies were correct (basically, current science is correct) and GMOs are safe, then isn't a comparison of the ethics of the two large companies equal? One ethically has issues with being super over protective, while the other has issues with being deceitful to increase sales. I feel that is an apt comparison of two large companies and how ethics are kinda skewed in both.

Just a quick aside on this point, I used one resource from Monsanto's web page and it was information on the number of court cases, not any information on the details of those case. For any of that I have gone outside of Monsanto. For all planting information and food safety information, I have been using the independent studies section on biofortified.org and I am discussing with farmers that argue for GMOs for information regarding the increase in cost to a farmer which labeling would cause. It's not in the labels themselves, but the infrastructure for storing the grains, which would need to be separated now. Monsanto is not responsible for installing any of that infrastructure to maintain separation.ABE - Also, could you post some links to where you are getting this Iraq information from? I am reading multiple conflicting reports on this topic both from what appear to be trustworthy sources. I get claiming I am not doing my homework, we are used to arguing on EVC where many creationists do not. However, I am finding information that says seed saving is allowable...some where it says it is not, some where it says Order 81 is beneficial and others where it is not. I would like to compare some of the info I have found with what you are discussing.As for the suicides in India, please explain how me giving you a reference discussing the lack of public funds to be loaned to poor farmers and how they are subsequently forced to take private loans with exorbitant interest rates was me not doing my homework?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

I do not mean to sound like I am coming from Monsanto PR, especially because I am in agreement that the business practices, the patent laws, and other legal issues in this area of business should be looked into in depth and studied. That being said, I do agree that many instances have been willful theft by the accused (Just seems like human nature to have a few bad seeds, forgive the pun). However, I will not state how many of the total cases.If I seem particularly Pro-Monsanto, it is mainly because I am Pro-GMO and biotechnology. I find the safety has reached a particular level of concensus and that the food has largely proven to be safe. I find the removal of crops from areas where they could only benefit, such as East Asia with Golden Rice, through ignoring the science to be a bad move for humanity's future. That was why I would have preferred that we focused on the safety issues of the tech, rather than the company names. However, I do think that the legal issues are a good discussion as well and I think we will all learn more from them, so let us allow those topics as well and continue this line of discussion. Now, in the legal arena I am not Pro-Monsanto, but I do feel that they are due some sort of protection to recoup losses from R&D. Let's face it, they do put millions of dollars into R&D in order to develop a new product for the market, which includes submitting it for approval through the FDA. However, I would place a much shorter limit on the length of protection for these products, after which multiple breeders can compete in the marketplace. Perhaps a limit of five growing seasons, but I would think looking into profit raised from a new development versus amount of cost that goes into development could raise some light on how long the term should be. But, is this a mistake of Monsanto, or is it a failing of the entire process of trying to set Iraq up as a developed country, instead of as a developing country? From my understanding, Monsanto is not making any money off GMOs in Iraq because while the IP rights are protected under Order 81, GMOs are still illegal to grow in Iraq. SourceAgreed that we need to avoid one sided stories, but if the science on the benefits of GMOs is reaching a consensus, we should move past that argument and begin working on the other intricacies that this new technology brings us. The problem I am against is those that are completely against GMOs and feel they are terrible for humanity when a bulk of the evidence points otherwise. In evaluating resources, I will admit, that once someone has knowingly presented false facts, it creates a slight bias that makes me read their information more carefuly. In the case of Vandana Shiva's article, she makes statements that are blatantly false, such as claiming that local seed does not require pesticides, while GMO seed does. Then places the blame for the suicides in India on the GMOs and Monsanto. If the bases that she is resting her conclusion on are false, and many are in her case, then it stands to reason that the conclusion is not logically sounds. India has a lot of problems with their agriculture system, but GMOs are not initiator of the problems. SourceI don't think Myself, anyone, or even Monsanto is concerned if you want to label crops that you grow in your own backyard. The labeling that they are against is the mandatory federal and state labeling for products containing GMOs. These are also the labeling laws that I am against because there is no nutritional or health based reason, in the scientific literature for approved products, that justifies this declaration. This is what I am discussing when I say that labeling will lead to an increased cost on the farmer, rather than Monsanto because Monsanto will not be th one responsible for installing the grain silos and other infrastructure needed to house separated grains. I found the article I was talking about that discussed the labeling issue from a farmer's perspective: The Foodie Farmer: The Cost of GMO LabelingBecause there is no health reasons, if any food should wish to be differentiated it should fall onto the providors of that food type, not the overall market to bow to their wishes when they are not based on science. Otherwise, why is there not a push to require that all foods be labeled non-kosher? That is another category that does not have health or nutrition implications and labeling of that product is voluntary to the corporation or farm, not forced.

I think they are deceitful in their ability to continue to press the controversy, similar to how the climate change denialists are deceitful because they want to keep that debate going. By keeping the debate going, they continue the fearful image of the "Frankenfood", which increases their business. I am all for increasing your business through smart advertising, but not through manufacturing a controversy where one does not exist. I don't like how the oil companies do it with climate change either.Of the crops that have been approved for cultivation in at least one country, the only report I am ever pointed to from the anti-GMO crowd is the Seralini study: SourceHowever, this study has never been replicated because of the small sample size used. Seralini used groups of ten rats, with a species that has cancer occur by the age of 2 in 70-80% of the population and then tried to claim that it was the GM Corn that was responsible. There was no statistical significance to these results and the paper has since been retracted from the journal. I have read several of the papers listed on the biofortified.org site and they do not conclude a similar issue with GMOs and these results are verified. Asking for testable, repeatable results is something that we should ask for and Seralini was not able to do so. The fact that his study is still used as "evidence" by anti-GMO groups shows similar underpinnings to the arguments made in our evolution threads and should be treated with skepticism. Monsanto does publish their research and it is available for individuals to pore over, and the resounding stance of the scientific community is the safety of these products. As a non-scientist I must do my best to understand the papers and trust in the judgment of individuals who are trained in the respective fields. I have read the results of the Flavr Savr tomato and those were not good results, which is why this product is not grown, same as the low tar tobacco.

Understandable, I just like my message to look all multi-colored and purdy, so that's why I do it. And that argument would be a strawman of what I am claiming or that they are. They are fine with individuals who want to live a gluten-free life or pesticide free, or GMO free. Where they draw the line is making up Bullshit (hence the name of the show) claims of increased nutrition, better environmental impact, less pesticides in order to increase the profits of your product. Americans be dumb!!!!! You give them a little reason to think that buying organic is healthier and they would love to! However, the premise is not based on truth and that is deceitful. Tell them the truth about organics, it is grown with natural pesticides, natural weed killer, and without the aid of chemical fertilizers. If people want natural, more power to them. Just don't tell them they are going to get better health benefits because of it because that is not shown by the current scientific literature. Again, Penn and Teller go to extreme level of hyperbole because that helps it comedically. My fault for not connecting it better to my point. I was using it as a hyperbolic way to show how lying about the benefits and manufacturing a scientific controversy where one does not exist to increase sales is not ethical business practices. A product should stand or fall on its actual merits. It is the manufactured controversy that causes this though. If you choose Whole Foods over a regular grocery store because you deplore Monsanto's business practices, fine. If you can't stand globalization and want countries to develop at their own pace instead of Americanization so you refuse to help global corporations, fine. However, if you are tricked into going into these places by false information, not based upon the bulk of scientific research, and hating Monsanto for creating "FrankenFoods", then you should have an issue because your reasoning for hating the company is based on false reasoning and you have been tricked for your dollar, as far as evidence has suggested. If Climate change were really happening, it wouldn't be that hard to sell it to the public. However, the scientific consensus states that it is. So should we rely on how difficult it is to sell to the public or what the scientific community, especially closely related to that field, states about the topic and try our best to read the papers for understanding? When it comes to labeling products, I am all for optional labeling of natural foods and organics. If a company is organic and does not care to have that associated with them they can opt out of the label. No label, assume a GMO is in the product at some point down the line. When science has a consensus that there is no danger, then we should not force mandatory labeling for non-health reasons, especially when that will increase the cost of production not on the seed sellers (Monsanto, but on the farmers. I agree, it will be a great benefit to our society! I am hopeful that the Golden Rice will get past GreenPeace's block and finally begin to help those in need of Vitamin A.

This is actually another of the Seralini articles based on his faulty test design.The first problem with the test is the choice of rat to use for the testing. He chose to use Sprague-Dawley albino rats, which have a non test cancer rate of up to 80% if allowed to live up to two years old. SourcceHe then made the test group of each type of food 400 rats, 200 of each sex, and only tested 10 from each group. He was taking a representative population of 2.5% and these rats are known to spontaneously grow tumors in the regions his study found tumors in. To me, this seems like setting your experiment up to succeed and this is why his research has been officially retracted. Wiki on Seralini affairABE - My fault, I read the author and assumed this was the 2012 study so just found where he discussed sampling only ten rats. He did do that as well in this study. I will read this one tomorrow and get back with you. I do not want to try and read through it when I am tired.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Realized my error

The biggest key to being classified as a GMO I believe resides in the use of transgenic genes. These are genes that most likely would not appear in the organism through normal genetic transfer. An important point to note is that when we use artificial selection to change a plant, we are aware of the physical changes we are aiming for but the genetic changes in these plants are largely unknown, whereas with transgenic plants the scientists are generally changing somewhere between 1 and 3 specific genes, which we know the function of. Then, they are waiting until the genes fixate to verify if any other changes have occurred along the genome.To all, I think with the labeling issue we are arguing two different things...I am not against any company that would like to label their food as non-GMO (even though gaining the organic label would take care of this for the company, but that is another point). The issue I have is the push for mandatory labeling of all products containing GMO. Why can the specialty products not be the ones labeled (if it is mandatory) and the bulk of our food system (70% of grocery store items contain GMOs) can remain unlabeled and consumers can assume GMO presence? The increase in infrastructure I have been discussing is what would occur if GMO products were required to be labeled as containing GMOs, not if companies wanted to take extra care with only their products and do their own labeling. From the studies that have been done, I do not see the necessity of the mandatory requirement...

Hello Ramoss!So, I have now finished with the Seralini 2009 study, which detailed the effects on Sprague-Dawley rats consuming GMOs for both five weeks and 14 weeks. They stuck with the same parameters that were used in his later experiment of only testing 10 rats for each feeding method out of a larger group, similar to the Monsanto tests. We do not have the same problem with the small sample size in these trials (versus the 2012 study) because the length of the trial is not enough for the spontaneous tumor growth to be a factor. However, from reviews of Seralini's work, in addition to the fact that his predicted results were not duplicated within the later 2012 study, tend to show there is an error in his methods. In fact, the wiki I posted in my other message to you discusses that several regulation boards worldwide reviewed Seralini's work and all determined that the fluctuations in levels were within standards from the controls. These groups included European Food Safety Authority, The French Commission du Gnie Biomolculaire, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand.One issue I have with the paper is that it does not include the levels in the charts for the control group, only the 11% and the 33%. I am just expected to take his word for it that there was a marked increase in size of these organs, without being able to check the data from the control myself.He continues later during the discussion section to state that: However, he has completed the two year feeding study (this is the one completed in 2012 and retracted in 2013) and not seen the differences he was expecting to see, especally because he did not control for the already high cancer rate in the test subjects used.Monsanto runs similar trials to this, using a smaller rat population, but they do not use them to the full life span, since the small sample size combined with the high cancer rate is what kills the tests as they run longer. And Seralini came to the same results as Monsanto in his tests: I would be more likely to give credence to this study if Seralini had actually been able to replicate his own results (and possibly fulfill his prediction), but he has not been able to do either of those things and neither has anyone else. People have seen the same differences in size of the organs, but only Seralini sees this as significantly outside of the control data.Another nail in Seralini's coffin is the company that he does his research for is a well known Anti-GMO group known as "The Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering", or CRIIGEN. Coming from a company with a guaranteed bias and finding results that no one else can replicate leads me to find this study less than trustworthy.The last point would be the Impact level of the journal this was printed in which is a 3.168, making this a very low-impact journal that is rarely cited in other publications. This is defnitely not a guarantee of bad science, but it does make one wonder why articles they are printing are rarely cited by other researchers to defend their theses.

The US is the largest supplier of GMO foods, with 8 different GMO crops approved for sale. Our lsit includes, Maize, Soybean, Cotton, Canola, Sugarbeet, Alfalfa, Papaya and Squash. In the US, approximately 70% of the products sold in conventional grocery stores contain a GMO of some sort, especially within the processed foods. I am all for individuals who would like to label their foods GMO-free on a volutary basis, even though it does silently invoke a negative connotation to GMOs, at least it would not create a necessary major overhaul to the production process as far as farms are concerned. Agreed that the stigma being attached is the bogus part of all of this discussion. However, offering a voluntary GMO-Free label would allow a majority of infrastructure to still be maintained and will put the onus on the individuals who want to appeal to a market segment based upon personal preference, not health related reasons. GMOs have removed several products that were being tested prior to introduction because their testing did not show safety enough to be released, including the Flavr-Savr Tomato (colloquially known as the Fish Tomato), the low tar tobacco, and a GM pea that contained genes from Green Beans that did show unhealthy results. Those that have hit the market have shown themselves to be safe in testing and have been tested by independent (I know Blue Jay says not independent, but I would like to then know how he is aware that the money to the lab comes from BigAg, since the money trail states that it does not) groups showing similar results. Currently, no a lot of the food is not separated before being loaded into the grain silos for storage. Remember that several farmers all use the same grain silos by selling their product to the owner of that silo to be sold to the public. Organic must be certified to contain no GMO products and only use natural pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer and many farms will keep some stuff separated to provide for the organic market to ensure they receive no GMOs. However, the majority is mixed together and sold from there to the next level on the supply chain. The cost and effort that is being discussed is through mandatory labeling stating "GMOs Inside" or something similar, which would require the addition of extra grain silos, more trucks for transport, and several other levels of additions to the current US agricultural infrastructure. Creating this upheavel is not worth the cost when it is not based on scientifically sounds health reasons. If there reasons based on nutrition or health I would gladly fight for required GMO labeling, but I will fight against arbitrarily deciding that is the method that must be used. The article I posted from the point of view of a farmer (as I am a suburbanite, I can honestly say I do not get much opportunity to understand exactly how a farm operates) about mandatory labeling goes into detail on what will need to be added to the infrastructure and what goes into getting crops to your table: SourceYes, GMOs must be submitted to a regulatory committee before being approved for sale and must go through several research steps to get to this point. 90 day toxicology studies, allergen studies, etc...they have to know how the added genes will alter any other proteins already being made by the organism. This is also why they must wait for the mutation to fixate before attempting to submit a crop for testing with the FDAThe problem people have with the testing procedure is that much of the system was designed by scientists who did work or currently worked for many of the BigAg companies. One reason I personally think this is a good idea (while I can see the negative possiblities also) is that these are the scientists best trained in the field of biotechnology. Would we want physicists making the standards for biotech? Or Geologists? And, as Blue Jay said, the cost of operating a genetic project is very prohibitive to small companies entering the industry, which means a majority of your biotechnology scientists will work for companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta. I defnitely don't think that people should be getting their nutrition advice and whether or not something is bad for you from FoodBabe:
Food BabeThis women seems to think that everything she cannot pronounce is going to give you cancer and sadly, people are taking her advice. She is the one resposible for revealing that a completely safe product, that also happens to be used in yoga mats in a different way, is contained in Subway bread. It was a bleaching agent to make your white bread look more white and had been used for years. It is GRAS, or Generally regarded as safe, with the major issues being individuals who have worked in the processing plants of the product. Source