Support GMO foods

[bilby]

Only those hopelessly deluded by their ideology consider being asked to support their claims as an ad-hominem.

This type of argument was used for cigarettes, asbestos, leaded gas and paint, thalidomide, DDT, hexachloraphene, etc. etc. etc. and to what end?

Well, in each of those cases, people went out and demonstrated that the product in question was harmful; and its use was subsequently restricted or banned. That's exactly how the system is meant to work; and for every one of the products in your list, there were dozens of equally novel but harmless products, which we still use to this day.

You are saying, unless we have the money to make something apparent we should just shut up and go away, so we can experience the harm en masse.

Pretty much, yes. There are plenty of you; it wouldn't cost much if you all chipped in. So if you want to ban GMOs (or any other technology), the answer is simple - demonstrate harm. If there is no 'apparent' harm, then 'harm en-masse' is not on the table. People have been eating GMOs for two decades. 'Harm en-masse' has not materialised; any harm there may be would have to be very subtle to have gone unnoticed at this stage.

I feel you are trusting, not crews of scientists, but Monsanto lobbies and their shills in government...people with a vested interest in regulatory inaction, who frankly feel just as you have come to feel.

Frankly, I don't give a rats arse who you 'feel I am trusting'. I am trusting nobody at all - I am simply asking those who oppose GMOs to demonstrate that they have a case. I am sure as shit not going to trust anyone who says they might have a case, but that they have no evidence.

What you are not understanding is that I am in favor of GMO investigations of new applications that stand alone and can be studied.

So fund such investigations. Chip in a few bucks each, along with all the other anti-GMO activists, and prove that you have a point.

Currently funded GMO research is loaded with concomitant goals which really are experimental engineering efforts to consolidate the chemical industry's massive control of agriculture.

If by this you mean that the people who fund research tend to seek answers to the questions they have, rather than the questions you think they should have, then you are absolutely right. So what? If you have questions that are not being answered by the current research, fund some new research to answer your questions. Or do the research yourself. Nobody will stop you.

We are not seeing any result in terms of anything in terms of immunity on plants excepting resistance to a VERY few BRAND NAME HERBICIDE. Such research is done in the interest of profit and NOT TO INFORM THE PUBLIC.

Yes. So? It would be nice if corporations did pure research more often; but such pure research as they do is entirely at their own whim; they don't care what you want, and nor should they. When you go to buy something, you might look at a few possible purchases, check the prices in different stores, compare the features each item has, and use that research to make a decision. Should I lambast you for doing this research purely for your own purposes, with no intent to INFORM THE PUBLIC?

You claim people who want real answers they can trust should get into our laboratories and fund and do the research...or STFU.

Indeed I do. And they should.

This is an unrealistic and disingenuous demand.

Why? You want something, you pay for it. You are the one with a claim - that GMOs are dangerous. You need to prove it. Or to accept that the rest of us don't care for your unsupported claims.

We have essentially the same problem with big pharma we have with Monsanto..."Trust us! It's making us lots of money and your belly is full...so just shut up!" This is hardly acceptable.

Indeed, but that's not actually what anyone is saying. You don't have to trust anyone. You just have to do your own research. Given that you wouldn't trust the results if they came from Monsanto funded research, there really isn't any other choice - the research needs to be independently funded - by the people who have a claim to test. You claim that GMOs are harmful. Prove it or STFU.

It's the same argument with any other unsupported claim. If you claimed that God wants me not to eat pork - prove it or STFU. If you claim that you have a unicorn in your garage - prove it or STFU. If you claim that sacrificing a virgin at the full moon will bring an abundant harvest - prove it or STFU.

It is not up to Monsanto to do your homework; and you wouldn't accept the results of any testing they did anyway.

You want testing - do some testing.

You absolutely know this is beyond the means of the average citizen. Monsanto should not be trusted...unless you are a corporate IDIOT! More ridiculous demands...Your actual approach to this question is AD HOM , go away, fund things with money we don't have, but mainly YOUR POSITION IF ONE OF UNQUESTIONING LOYALTY AND TRUST IN MONSANTO...THE SAME AS CLARENCE THOMAS.

Activists have only recently just asked that these GMO products be labeled so it might be possible to gather some statistical data on them. To measure the effects of GMO on people you have to have a control group you know does not consume them and another group you know consumes them. So far it doesn't look so hot for a bunch of rats in Scotland. Maybe it is coming to YOUR HOME SOON. I would like you to be able to get all the GMO food you wish and me not get any. I don't think that is possible at this time however because labeling has not been required. In a market that has hidden GMO products, how would a population conclude they were harmless even if the entire population experienced say an epidemic of adult onset diabetes...which we are experiencing by the way.

Sure.

Diabetes caused by GMOs.

I will just be over here edging away from the crazy rant, if anyone needs me.

I am not suggesting that you need to fund the research single-handed; there are plenty of anti-GMO activists who can chip in. Just don't ask me to pay - and don't bother asking Monsanto to pay either, as that would invalidate the results in the minds of the faithful.

I don't trust Monsanto. But I do know enough Molecular Biology to assess the risk of GMOs as 'too slight to care about'.

I eat them quite often - in Australia and New Zealand, some GMOs in food are labelled, so I know that at least some of my food contains them.

Labels are not a requirement for controlled studies though - you can just compare US residents with EU residents, for example.

By the way, when you do, the results are clear - no detectable effects of GMOs to date, after two decades of human consumption of them.

To those of us who get our information from science textbooks, rather than YouTube, this is not surprising.

 

[Sajara]

Miracle grow: Indian farmers smash crop yield records without GMOs

http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/

Just saying...

 

[bilby]

Miracle grow: Indian farmers smash crop yield records without GMOs

http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/

Just saying...

If they are really getting such big yields, then that's great. But as the article says, this has not been demonstrated scientifically, so it amounts to hearsay. It would be extraordinary to get such large yields, so with such sketchy evidence for the claim, it should be treated with skepticism - the proposed mechanism doesn't seem on its face to be sufficient. Just as the proposed mechanism by which GMOs might cause harm doesn't seem sufficient to warrant a belief that they are dangerous.

The extraordinary claims are the ones we need to test.

 

[Axulus]

Miracle grow: Indian farmers smash crop yield records without GMOs

http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/

Just saying...

If they are really getting such big yields, then that's great. But as the article says, this has not been demonstrated scientifically, so it amounts to hearsay. It would be extraordinary to get such large yields, so with such sketchy evidence for the claim, it should be treated with skepticism - the proposed mechanism doesn't seem on its face to be sufficient. Just as the proposed mechanism by which GMOs might cause harm doesn't seem sufficient to warrant a belief that they are dangerous.

The extraordinary claims are the ones we need to test.

And even if the claims are true, it doesn't say anything about the possibility of GMO varieties being unable to provide further improvement in yield, that they can not provide improvements and benefits other than yield, that they can provide no yield benefits for other crops, or even that the same crop can not have yield improvements with GMO varieties in less favorable environments.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And that causes huge logistics costs that you want the rest of us to bear even though we don't care about whether it's GMO or not.

Furthermore, "(genetically modified Oryza Sativa)" is pure scare tactics. "Golden Rice" is enough for information purposes.

No, ... just no.

Gimme the numbers on these "huge logistics costs"
Lots of people pay the cost of things they don't care about. Like EVERBODY.
Golden Rice being enough for you says what exactly about EVERYBODY ELSE or do our opinions not matter just your one?

Some have already been mentioned in this thread. AFIAK nobody has done a study to see just how big they would be, we can clearly see they would be big.

 

[tupac chopra]

I'd love to. I'm hoping Togo will introduce me.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?3933-Support-GMO-foods&p=119770&viewfull=1#post119770

I've met scientists working for Monsanto on GMO foods who prefer to avoid GMO foods. Presumably they have some idea what they're talking about.

As long as the beer is cold though.

I don't know where you're based exactly. One still lives in Seattle, the other moved to North London. The latter would be easier for me, obviously. You won't catch him drinking beer though, since he's a serious wine fancier.

Tupac, if you are ever in St. Louis, send me a message, I might be able to accommodate you. I actually work for Monsanto (which is why I have been reluctant to wade into this discussion so far), and although I am not on the science side of things, I do help to develop the software the scientists use when running their breeding and biotech trials, so I work with the scientists in that capacity. It shouldn't be that hard to get one or two to meet up over a beer and educate you on their work (especially if you are buying). For the record, no one I know who works for Monsanto has any problem with consuming GMOs.

Thanks you for the offer. I'd love to. I love visiting America and love Americans. I host on airbnb but see far too few of you guys.
The closest i'll likely come this year is Black Rock City if I get there. (maybe I''l visit Loren instead )

 

[arkirk]

Only those hopelessly deluded by their ideology consider being asked to support their claims as an ad-hominem.

This type of argument was used for cigarettes, asbestos, leaded gas and paint, thalidomide, DDT, hexachloraphene, etc. etc. etc. and to what end?

Well, in each of those cases, people went out and demonstrated that the product in question was harmful; and its use was subsequently restricted or banned. That's exactly how the system is meant to work; and for every one of the products in your list, there were dozens of equally novel but harmless products, which we still use to this day.

You are saying, unless we have the money to make something apparent we should just shut up and go away, so we can experience the harm en masse.

Pretty much, yes. There are plenty of you; it wouldn't cost much if you all chipped in. So if you want to ban GMOs (or any other technology), the answer is simple - demonstrate harm. If there is no 'apparent' harm, then 'harm en-masse' is not on the table. People have been eating GMOs for two decades. 'Harm en-masse' has not materialised; any harm there may be would have to be very subtle to have gone unnoticed at this stage.

I feel you are trusting, not crews of scientists, but Monsanto lobbies and their shills in government...people with a vested interest in regulatory inaction, who frankly feel just as you have come to feel.

Frankly, I don't give a rats arse who you 'feel I am trusting'. I am trusting nobody at all - I am simply asking those who oppose GMOs to demonstrate that they have a case. I am sure as shit not going to trust anyone who says they might have a case, but that they have no evidence.

What you are not understanding is that I am in favor of GMO investigations of new applications that stand alone and can be studied.

So fund such investigations. Chip in a few bucks each, along with all the other anti-GMO activists, and prove that you have a point.

Currently funded GMO research is loaded with concomitant goals which really are experimental engineering efforts to consolidate the chemical industry's massive control of agriculture.

If by this you mean that the people who fund research tend to seek answers to the questions they have, rather than the questions you think they should have, then you are absolutely right. So what? If you have questions that are not being answered by the current research, fund some new research to answer your questions. Or do the research yourself. Nobody will stop you.

We are not seeing any result in terms of anything in terms of immunity on plants excepting resistance to a VERY few BRAND NAME HERBICIDE. Such research is done in the interest of profit and NOT TO INFORM THE PUBLIC.

Yes. So? It would be nice if corporations did pure research more often; but such pure research as they do is entirely at their own whim; they don't care what you want, and nor should they. When you go to buy something, you might look at a few possible purchases, check the prices in different stores, compare the features each item has, and use that research to make a decision. Should I lambast you for doing this research purely for your own purposes, with no intent to INFORM THE PUBLIC?

You claim people who want real answers they can trust should get into our laboratories and fund and do the research...or STFU.

Indeed I do. And they should.

This is an unrealistic and disingenuous demand.

Why? You want something, you pay for it. You are the one with a claim - that GMOs are dangerous. You need to prove it. Or to accept that the rest of us don't care for your unsupported claims.

We have essentially the same problem with big pharma we have with Monsanto..."Trust us! It's making us lots of money and your belly is full...so just shut up!" This is hardly acceptable.

Indeed, but that's not actually what anyone is saying. You don't have to trust anyone. You just have to do your own research. Given that you wouldn't trust the results if they came from Monsanto funded research, there really isn't any other choice - the research needs to be independently funded - by the people who have a claim to test. You claim that GMOs are harmful. Prove it or STFU.

It's the same argument with any other unsupported claim. If you claimed that God wants me not to eat pork - prove it or STFU. If you claim that you have a unicorn in your garage - prove it or STFU. If you claim that sacrificing a virgin at the full moon will bring an abundant harvest - prove it or STFU.

It is not up to Monsanto to do your homework; and you wouldn't accept the results of any testing they did anyway.

You want testing - do some testing.

You absolutely know this is beyond the means of the average citizen. Monsanto should not be trusted...unless you are a corporate IDIOT! More ridiculous demands...Your actual approach to this question is AD HOM , go away, fund things with money we don't have, but mainly YOUR POSITION IF ONE OF UNQUESTIONING LOYALTY AND TRUST IN MONSANTO...THE SAME AS CLARENCE THOMAS.

Activists have only recently just asked that these GMO products be labeled so it might be possible to gather some statistical data on them. To measure the effects of GMO on people you have to have a control group you know does not consume them and another group you know consumes them. So far it doesn't look so hot for a bunch of rats in Scotland. Maybe it is coming to YOUR HOME SOON. I would like you to be able to get all the GMO food you wish and me not get any. I don't think that is possible at this time however because labeling has not been required. In a market that has hidden GMO products, how would a population conclude they were harmless even if the entire population experienced say an epidemic of adult onset diabetes...which we are experiencing by the way.

Sure.

Diabetes caused by GMOs.

I will just be over here edging away from the crazy rant, if anyone needs me.

I am not suggesting that you need to fund the research single-handed; there are plenty of anti-GMO activists who can chip in. Just don't ask me to pay - and don't bother asking Monsanto to pay either, as that would invalidate the results in the minds of the faithful.

I don't trust Monsanto. But I do know enough Molecular Biology to assess the risk of GMOs as 'too slight to care about'.

I eat them quite often - in Australia and New Zealand, some GMOs in food are labelled, so I know that at least some of my food contains them.

Labels are not a requirement for controlled studies though - you can just compare US residents with EU residents, for example.

By the way, when you do, the results are clear - no detectable effects of GMOs to date, after two decades of human consumption of them.

To those of us who get our information from science textbooks, rather than YouTube, this is not surprising.

The largest GMO commercial applications in terms of volume of foods produced are the corn and the soybean crops....common crops. These crops were already extremely cheap and as a result the high fructose corn syrup has become an even cheaper choice of sweeteners for soft drinks and processed foods requiring sweetening. This has resulted in an increase in adult onset diabetes. The vast majority of corn and soybean crops are already GMO. This in fact probably lowers the price of these products and further insinuates high fructose corn syrup in the diets of many in quantities that apparently cause adult onset diabetes. Simply expanding the availability of corn and its refined products in food is unhealthy. We do not know if the current spike in adult onset diabetes is directly attributable to ALL CORN PRODUCTS or just GMO products because the vast bulk of corn used in these products are GMO.

Who is checking for GMO effects and not detecting them. You don't really have data to support what you say, but you say it anyway. I suppose that is because you are one of the faithful and dare not even think there may be trouble with GMO's....a strange religion indeed.

bilby: I don't really give a shit what you do or eat. I do care what I eat and how I live. I feel it is okay to produce GMO's and study them, not to use them on such a wide scale without research as to their safety. That research has not been done here. Lacking that research, people should have the right to avoid GMO products if they desire. They can only do that if it is labeled. You know that well. For most of us, we are already heavily dosed with this shit without our knowledge. You may think that is cool and it is okay to lambast me, but your truly only have your feelings and your faith to go on. The information we need is not available.

Don't make a big thing of your textbooks either. You really are not special in that respect. You say I need to prove what I am claiming, so I better get me to the lab. I am not claiming anything and you know it. I am talking to the faithful telling them that WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT A STUDY WOULD REVEAL...MAYBE THAT EVERYTHING WAS ALRIGHT...MAYBE SOMETHING WE DIDN'T EXPECT. LIKE THE GOOD DOCTOR IN SCOTLAND.

 

[tupac chopra]

Just as the proposed mechanism by which GMOs might cause harm doesn't seem sufficient to warrant a belief that they are dangerous. .

1.What mechanism are you talking about.
2. And which of the scientists who are cautious about GMO's proposed this mechanism as the problem?

As far as I am aware scientists who have actually worked on GMO's haven't actually proposed a specific mechanism for the problems they saw. Yet, you seem to know of one.

 

[arkirk]

Miracle grow: Indian farmers smash crop yield records without GMOs

http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/

Just saying...

It is amazing how people fail to understand the relationship of the farmer and his labor to growing the corps. Thanks for the post. Industrial agriculture is a nightmare of chemical applications and consequences...lawsuits and false charges against...who else...farmers.

- - - Updated - - -

Miracle grow: Indian farmers smash crop yield records without GMOs

http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/

Just saying...

If they are really getting such big yields, then that's great. But as the article says, this has not been demonstrated scientifically, so it amounts to hearsay. It would be extraordinary to get such large yields, so with such sketchy evidence for the claim, it should be treated with skepticism - the proposed mechanism doesn't seem on its face to be sufficient. Just as the proposed mechanism by which GMOs might cause harm doesn't seem sufficient to warrant a belief that they are dangerous.

The extraordinary claims are the ones we need to test.

Get busy and test it!

 

[tupac chopra]

Molecular biologist Masaharu Kawata studied Monsanto's safety reports on its herbicide-tolerant soy and found them to be non-science-based.

EXCERPT: Toxicology studies using Bt toxins alone, instead of Bt corn or potato, or E-coli proteins alone instead of GM soy protein would be like eating hops to determine the effects of beer. Safety studies on RR soybeans using samples subjected to high heat and never sprayed with Roundup would be like removing the percussion cap from a bullet, testing the bullet for safety and declaring all bullets are the same and therefore safe. Just don't put them in a gun. Is it any wonder that the results of Monsanto's safety studies differ from so many other published studies? GMOs are perfectly safe. Just don't eat them.​

Are substantial equivalence and safety studies for GM soy fraudulent?

 

[bilby]

Just as the proposed mechanism by which GMOs might cause harm doesn't seem sufficient to warrant a belief that they are dangerous. .

1.What mechanism are you talking about.

Exactly.

2. And which of the scientists who are cautious about GMO's proposed this mechanism as the problem?

None of them. That's the point.

As far as I am aware scientists who have actually worked on GMO's haven't actually proposed a specific mechanism for the problems they saw.

Exactly my point

Yet, you seem to know of one.

Nope. But the fact that you (and the 'scientists' you quote) seem not to, speaks volumes.

You've got nothing but your misplaced certainty. Not one solitary thing.

 

[tupac chopra]

You've got nothing but your misplaced certainty. Not one solitary thing.

Again you fail to understand the most basic thing about science.

1.Scientists see a problem
2. They investigate.
Your idea is
1.Scientists see a problem
2. They ignore it.

We know that some scientists have seen what appear to be problems . Though if Monsanto scientists have seen them Monsanto owns the study and have hidden it,

But Giles Seralini saw them and so did Arpad Pusztai, Both suggest that we investigate, This investigation is called science.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The largest GMO commercial applications in terms of volume of foods produced are the corn and the soybean crops....common crops. These crops were already extremely cheap and as a result the high fructose corn syrup has become an even cheaper choice of sweeteners for soft drinks and processed foods requiring sweetening. This has resulted in an increase in adult onset diabetes. The vast majority of corn and soybean crops are already GMO. This in fact probably lowers the price of these products and further insinuates high fructose corn syrup in the diets of many in quantities that apparently cause adult onset diabetes. Simply expanding the availability of corn and its refined products in food is unhealthy. We do not know if the current spike in adult onset diabetes is directly attributable to ALL CORN PRODUCTS or just GMO products because the vast bulk of corn used in these products are GMO.

Sounds like a creationist god-of-the-gaps argument.

Diabetes has been going up before GMO became an issue.

Who is checking for GMO effects and not detecting them. You don't really have data to support what you say, but you say it anyway. I suppose that is because you are one of the faithful and dare not even think there may be trouble with GMO's....a strange religion indeed.

There have been studies purporting to show GMO problems. They are uniformly crap.

Don't make a big thing of your textbooks either. You really are not special in that respect. You say I need to prove what I am claiming, so I better get me to the lab. I am not claiming anything and you know it. I am talking to the faithful telling them that WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT A STUDY WOULD REVEAL...MAYBE THAT EVERYTHING WAS ALRIGHT...MAYBE SOMETHING WE DIDN'T EXPECT. LIKE THE GOOD DOCTOR IN SCOTLAND.

In other words, just because you don't understand the science that means we can't, either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Molecular biologist Masaharu Kawata studied Monsanto's safety reports on its herbicide-tolerant soy and found them to be non-science-based.

EXCERPT: Toxicology studies using Bt toxins alone, instead of Bt corn or potato, or E-coli proteins alone instead of GM soy protein would be like eating hops to determine the effects of beer. Safety studies on RR soybeans using samples subjected to high heat and never sprayed with Roundup would be like removing the percussion cap from a bullet, testing the bullet for safety and declaring all bullets are the same and therefore safe. Just don't put them in a gun. Is it any wonder that the results of Monsanto's safety studies differ from so many other published studies? GMOs are perfectly safe. Just don't eat them.​

Are substantial equivalence and safety studies for GM soy fraudulent?

Sorry, if it's toxic it's toxic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You've got nothing but your misplaced certainty. Not one solitary thing.

Again you fail to understand the most basic thing about science.

1.Scientists see a problem
2. They investigate.
Your idea is
1.Scientists see a problem
2. They ignore it.

We know that some scientists have seen what appear to be problems . Though if Monsanto scientists have seen them Monsanto owns the study and have hidden it,

But Giles Seralini saw them and so did Arpad Pusztai, Both suggest that we investigate, This investigation is called science.

Except the scientists don't see a problem.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Short of a ban (which I do not support) the labeling issue is actually very silly. We already have laws that require labels to be as accurate as possible; your Pepsi lists among its ingredients "high fructose corn syrup" which beverage manufacturers cannot list to as simply "sugar." It could and should be as simple as a requirement to specify whether or not ingredients are derived from GMO stocks.

"Ingredients: Freekah (roasted green wheat), Whole Grain Quinoa, Roasted Peanuts, Brown Rice, Golden Rice (genetically modified Oryza Sativa), Parboiled Red Rice...."
Let the hipster consumer say "Genetically modified? No thank you."

And that causes huge logistics costs that you want the rest of us to bear even though we don't care about whether it's GMO or not.

SERIOUSLY?!



If the "huge logistics costs" associated with accurate labeling were THAT burdensome, we all would have starved to death decades ago.

Furthermore, "(genetically modified Oryza Sativa)" is pure scare tactics.

No moreso than "partially hydrogenated soybean oil". It's the actual name of the product being used.

 

[laughing dog]

No, ... just no.

Gimme the numbers on these "huge logistics costs"
Lots of people pay the cost of things they don't care about. Like EVERBODY.
Golden Rice being enough for you says what exactly about EVERYBODY ELSE or do our opinions not matter just your one?

Some have already been mentioned in this thread. AFIAK nobody has done a study to see just how big they would be, we can clearly see they would be big.

Obviously "we" cannot. And if it is so obvious, it should be easy to demonstrate. Until you do, your claim is bullshit.

 

[bilby]

You've got nothing but your misplaced certainty. Not one solitary thing.

Again you fail to understand the most basic thing about science.

1.Scientists see a problem
2. They investigate.
Your idea is
1.Scientists see a problem
2. They ignore it.

We know that some scientists have seen what appear to be problems . Though if Monsanto scientists have seen them Monsanto owns the study and have hidden it,

But Giles Seralini saw them and so did Arpad Pusztai, Both suggest that we investigate, This investigation is called science.

both Seralini and Pusztai have demonstrated by their behaviour that they were not engaged in science when they attempted your second step.

The issue here is that step 1 has yet to be taken. You want to go straight to step 2; but that is premature. First show that there is something to investigate; then others will do so. But in the absence of a problem, any investigation is purely the responsibility of those calling for one. Scientists won't care until they are shown an actual problem.

You have nothing but your misplaced certainty. That is a problem, but not one for science to deal with.

 

[Jarhyn]

Scientific method:
1. Observe phenomena
2. Hypothesize why
3. Test hypothesis
4. Modify hypothesis
5. GOTO: 2

If you start at 2, you fail at 3. When it is measured That GMO is causing health problems (through the use of longitudinal studies), then we move to step 2.

The problem with the Luddites is that they don't care. They have their hypothesis, and they'll be damned if steps 1,3,4 or 5 will stop them. Labeling won't help; what you need is a tightly controlled study where one group eats food with a novel GM tait inserted into the same base eaten by the control, preferably with the control having an inert gene inserted where the trait was in the transgenic version as a second control group and a fourth group with the expressed protein as an equal part of their diet in addition to the non-transgenic version. It needs to be done with something that has a fairly long lifecycle, not cancer-laden rats. My thought would be to use rabbits or guinnea pigs.

 

[Axulus]

Scientific method:
1. Observe phenomena
2. Hypothesize why
3. Test hypothesis
4. Modify hypothesis
5. GOTO: 2

If you start at 2, you fail at 3. When it is measured That GMO is causing health problems (through the use of longitudinal studies), then we move to step 2.

The problem with the Luddites is that they don't care. They have their hypothesis, and they'll be damned if steps 1,3,4 or 5 will stop them. Labeling won't help; what you need is a tightly controlled study where one group eats food with a novel GM tait inserted into the same base eaten by the control, preferably with the control having an inert gene inserted where the trait was in the transgenic version as a second control group and a fourth group with the expressed protein as an equal part of their diet in addition to the non-transgenic version. It needs to be done with something that has a fairly long lifecycle, not cancer-laden rats. My thought would be to use rabbits or guinnea pigs.

After that study is finished, they'll demand human studies to prove it is safe.