the insidious GMO threat (and it affects HFCS two ways ... )

Right off the bat, the video starts making erroneous arguments. It's just the same, tired anti-GMO rhetoric that biotechnologists -- armed with plenty of scientific data -- have consistently eviscerated.I don't know where to begin my critique of this video. How about at 10:27, where the paper "Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide" was referenced? One of the authors of the paper is Gilles-ric Sralini -- of the notorious Sralini affair, and author of numerous retracted papers.Or what about at 12:14, "Toxic pesticides from GM food crops found in unborn babies." The original study is "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada." It's an error-laden paper, and has been critiqued rather extensively. See here: If you record noise, you don't get music - you get nonsense. - Biology Fortified Inc.Might get to more of this video later. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

What tainted food? The only thing tainted here is our culture of ignorance that means much of the public lacks knowledge of how GMOs really work and what the science behind it all really says.People are squeamish about GMO. Often they do not know why. But squeamishness is not grounds for heavily regulating GMOs or banning them altogether. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Yea. Examples:"Infestation of Transgenic Powdery Mildew-Resistant Wheat by Naturally Occurring Insect Herbivores under Different Environmental Conditions," 2011. Research supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation."Sero-biochemical Studies in Sheep Fed with Bt Cotton Plants," 2010. Authored by researchers from the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Veterinary Science, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India."Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion," 2008. Authored by researchers from the Instituto Nacional de Sade Dr. Ricardo Jorge."Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding," 2006. Authored by researchers from the UK's Rothamsted Research."Prima facie evidence that a phytocystatin for transgenic plant resistance to nematodes is not a toxic risk in the human diet," 2004. Authored by researchers from the Centre for Plant Sciences, University of Leeds."Evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn on mouse testicular development by dual parameter flow cytometry," 2004. Authored by researchers from the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at South Dakota State University."Genetically modified feeds in animal nutrition. 1st communication: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn in poultry, pig and ruminant nutrition," 2001. Authored by researchers from the Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre Braunschweig....and all of these support the safety of GMOs in one way or another, and all by 3rd party research facilities. In other words, it's being done by normal, everyday scientists. Nope. Retracted because it's bad science. I'd like to see evidence that the publishers retracted those mangled papers because of pressure from "GMO companies." See here in response to your question: Is glyphosate toxic to humans? - Biology Fortified Inc. Uh, the paper has bad science. Unless you'd like to respond to the criticisms of the paper, you can't really hand-wave them away. Plenty of reasons why mandatory labeling of GMOs is not such a great idea. See here: Page not found – AgBioForum "Modern Biotechnology as an Integral Supplement to Conventional Plant Breeding: The Prospects and Challenges," 2006:"The successful deployment of transgenic approaches to combat insect pests and diseases of important crops like rice (Oryza sativa L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), maize (Zea mays L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is a remarkable accomplishment. Biofortification of crops constitutes another exciting development in tackling global hunger and malnutrition. Golden Rice, genetically enriched with vitamin A and iron, has, for example, the real potential of saving millions of lives. Yet another exciting application of transgenic technology is in the production of edible vaccines against deadly diseases. How these novel approaches to gene transfer can effectively supplement the conventional breeding programs is described. The current resistance to acceptance of this novel technology should be assessed and overcome so that its full potential in crop improvement can be realized." "GMOs: building the future on the basis of past experience," 2006:"It must be emphasized that Roundup Ready soybean is just one example of how biotechnology can bring in significant advances for society, not only through increased productivity, but also with beneficial environmental impact, thereby allowing more rational use of agricultural pesticides for improvement of the soil conditions. The adoption of agricultural practices with higher yield will also allow better distribution of income among small farmers. New species of genetically modified plants will soon be available and society should be capable of making decisions in an objective and well-informed manner, through collegiate bodies that are qualified in all aspects of biosafety and environmental impact." So you're criticizing the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers -- not GMOs? Let's look at the whole picture. Much of agriculture is built on the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers -- whether or not GMOs are being planted. So you're bringing in a bit of a tangent here. Because RealFarmacy.com is this great news source, right? Here: LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You Peer-reviewed papers, please. Where's the peer-reviewed source for this? Let's see the peer-reviewed evidence for this claim. Farmers don't need to use hazmat suits to grow GMO crops.

Yup.But that's not the case for all GMO crops.Nor is it an idiosyncrasy of GMOs.And I would expect something like this given the vast number of gallons of chemicals being used to tend to these crops. Extrapolating that to the dinner table is grossly inappropriate.

Peer-reviewed source for this study, please. See above. So what statistical tests were used to determine if the results were statistically significant? Note that any ole' article pulled from the web isn't the greatest source for these claims, so I await the peer-reviewed studies you are armed with.