# GMO Foods: No one can seriously dispute what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [August 1, 2014, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571 "2014-08-01T11:43:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Dunkelheit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dunkelheit/32/248_2.png) [@Dunkelheit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunkelheit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/61 "2014-08-04T11:40:51Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Blasphemy! Cane sugar only, thenkewverymuch. Is there a significant difference, other than effect on the environment and local population where it’s grown? I’ve been eating beet sugar since I arrived in the UK, and it doesn’t seem to be any different in flavour or behaviour from cane sugar. ---
**Author:** ![Dunkelheit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dunkelheit/32/248_2.png) [@Dunkelheit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunkelheit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/62 "2014-08-04T11:42:30Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > My main concern with GM crops has to do with the continuing trend of food crops being mono cultures. If a fungus/virus is found that attacks these specific varieties of corn or soy, we can wipe out all the food producers out there. If more farmers grew a variety of strains of food crops the food supply would be better protected. As more large scale farms buy the same GM products, it further reduces the variety being grown. That is such a good point that it bears repeating. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that, given that lack of diversity in monoculture cropping is one of my bugbears. ---
**Author:** ![Dunkelheit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dunkelheit/32/248_2.png) [@Dunkelheit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunkelheit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/63 "2014-08-04T11:53:47Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > \*I’m reminded of a movie I saw a while back which implied that if the “terminator seed” crossbred with standard breeds, it could lead to massive crop failures. Which is hilarious, because GURT is sterile - it can’t crossbreed because its defining qualifier is “sterile”. It’s really so asinine I can barely wrap my head around it. The issue with the Terminator GMOs is that if they pollinated other farmers’ crops, the resulting seed would presumably be sterile. This would prevent those other farmers from saving and re-sowing their own seed the way farmers have done for centuries. Those farmers would effectively be bound by a contractual obligation not to re-sow – and from someone else’s contract that they didn’t voluntarily choose. Since they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between fertile and sterile seed by looking at it, then yes, crop failure could result when they tried to plant the seeds the following season. ---
**Author:** ![JoelWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@JoelWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelWhy)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/64 "2014-08-04T12:56:37Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Food sellers are increasingly promoting their products as “non-GMO”, even when there are no GMO alternatives and it’s ludicrous to think there are (one entrepreneur is even offering [“non-GMO” Himalayan rock salt)](http://www.science20.com/cool-links/nongmo_salt_i_cant_wait_see_whole_foods-111929). > > With all these sellers voluntarily labeling their products non-GMO to attract the gullible, you can choose from a wide selection of foods in order to avoid the Evil DNA. And doing without processed foods adds an extra layer of “protection”. > > So why do anti-GMOers keep pushing for mandatory labeling? The obvious reason is to stigmatize foods with genetically modified ingredients and force them off the market. > > I do not want ignorant, fearful people taking away _my_ choices, including the ability to drink orange juice and coffee made from genetically modified varieties which resist serious crop pathogens (there’s a real threat to the O.J. and coffee supply from these pests, and biotechnology may offer the only realistic way to keep them available). > > Go buy your preferred stuff labeled “non-GMO”, “organic”, “sooper-healthy sooperfood” or whatever you want. But don’t manipulate the law to suit your ideology.Sounds indisputable to me! > > But seriously, you think no herbicides are used on conventionally-bred crops? Or that Roundup (used on some GM crops) is more dangerous than standard herbicides (it’s actually much less toxic)? Amen, brother. Liberals cling to the anti-scientific belief of GMO dangers much the same way the conservatives have decided that global warming can only be combated through government regulation, ergo global warming doesn’t exist. People need to stop deciding what science to accept/ignore based on their existing political ideology. If everyone would let their ideology be governed by facts instead of the other way around, we’d all be a whole lot better off. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/65 "2014-08-04T12:57:18Z")
> [@Dunkelheit](#): > > The issue with the Terminator GMOs is that if they pollinated other farmers’ crops, the resulting seed would presumably be sterile. It’s a non-issue, because the “terminator” technology is not in use. _“Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile. No, they’ll germinate and grow just like any other plant. This idea presumably has its roots in a real genetic modification (dubbed the Terminator Gene by anti-biotech activists) that can make a plant produce sterile seeds. Monsanto owns the patent on this technique, but has promised not to use it.”_ > **[Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted)** > > We're putting a stop to some of the myths about genetically modified seeds and when farmers can be sued over them. > [@Dunkelheit](#): > > The best way to get the benefits of fresh, local food of known and trusted provenance, without needing your own farm, is to get to know a local farmer who will allow you to view their operations, and buy direct from the source if possible. Short of growing your own food (a little of which I do) this is a dandy idea, and if you can be around this farm doing inspections frequently enough to be sure that good practices are being used, you can be fairly well assured that the farmer is running a sanitary operation and not using chemicals that you don’t want. This may be a reasonable option for relatively well-to-do First Worlders, not so much for people in developing countries which have rejected genetic modification techniques, partly due to scaremongering by the Whole Foods crowd. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/66 "2014-08-04T14:33:05Z")
> [@Dunkelheit](#): > > The issue with the Terminator GMOs is that if they pollinated other farmers’ crops, the resulting seed would presumably be sterile. This would prevent those other farmers from saving and re-sowing their own seed the way farmers have done for centuries. Those farmers would effectively be bound by a contractual obligation not to re-sow – and from someone else’s contract that they didn’t voluntarily choose. “Presumably”? First of all, [you get the same issue from standard hybrid seeds](http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/archives/parsons/vegetables/seed.html); second of all, citation that they even can cross-pollinate in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/67 "2014-08-04T14:51:26Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > “Presumably”? First of all, [you get the same issue from standard hybrid seeds](http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/archives/parsons/vegetables/seed.html); second of all, citation that they even can cross-pollinate in the first place? Also, [these guys think it doesn’t happen](http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=57), and according to [these guys](http://skepteco.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/the-truth-about-the-terminator/), GURT seeds do not produce pollen in the first place! ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/68 "2014-08-04T15:48:06Z")
Wow, Cecil: what a bunch of misinformation, half-truths and outright wrong stuff. I’d expect better from you. First, this line: That said, GMOs are much more closely regulated than farming experiments of old. Just not true. The guy who wrote the original GMO policy “no safety testing required” was a paid Monsanto attorney at the time he wrote it. Michael Taylor then became a Monsanto VP before Obama appointed or promoted him to the No. 2 spot at the FDA where he gets to continue the “no testing required” policy. So there is NO government regulation/oversight of GMO’s in the US. The scientific consensus is far from certain that they are safe. There’s been NO testing on humans. None. I asked a Monsanto genetics engineer about this – that we’re all guinea pigs and good luck proving it was harmful 20 years from now – and he agreed that it’s true. That they have never been tested “safe.” In fact, Michael Taylor’s drafted FDA policy specifically forbids any requirement of just such testing. As to the Seralini study, yes, it was withdrawn after the publication hired a former Monsanto scientist and gave him editorial direction, Richard E. Goodman. > **[Dirty Details Behind the Attacks on Seralini's Notorious GMO Rat Study](http://naturalsociety.com/sordid-details-behind-attacks-seralinis-notorious-gmo-rat-study/)** > > After Seralini's GMO toxicity study showed rats getting tumors, a tsunami of outrage unjustly took place. Here are the dirty details on those attacks. Lastly, there is no scientific consensus GMO’s are safe and there’s many scientists who believe otherwise. Of course, most Ag scientists who publicly state this find themselves rapidly unemployed, so it’s not a popular opinion to take. But here’s a few brave ones: [http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150-no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety](http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150-no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety) There is no scientific consensus that genetically modified foods and crops are safe, according to a statement released today by an international group of over 85 scientists, academics and physicians. * * * Another signatory, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse impacts on beneficial and non-target organisms. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO labelling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.” - See more at: [http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150-no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety#sthash.OX6cRIjW.dpuf](http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150-no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety#sthash.OX6cRIjW.dpuf) ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/69 "2014-08-04T16:27:34Z")
> [@whatsomattu](#): > > First, this line: That said, GMOs are much more closely regulated than farming experiments of old. > > Just not true. On the contrary,[there is extensive safety testing of GM crops](http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/41.evaluation_safety_gm_food_major_undertaking.html), in contrast to conventionally hybridized crops. > [@](#): > > So there is NO government regulation/oversight of GMO’s in the US. You forgot to mention the U.S.D.A and the E.P.A. in addition to the F.D.A. which all must sign off on safety before GM crops can be grown. > [@](#): > > The scientific consensus is far from certain that they are safe. There is a strong consensus that they are indeed safe. > **[With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed...](http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/)** > > Anti-GMO activists can no longer claim that there is no independent research of GMOs. There are now more than 2,000 global studies confirming their safety, including over 1,700 studies from a team of Italian scientists. The “few brave ones” who think otherwise (other than a small collection of petition signers involving people who tend not to have training in the area in which they pretend expertise) are hacks and cranks (like Vandana Shiva, who exaggerated her degree and publications, later approvingly linking to Mike Adams’ NaturalNews article calling for the murder of pro-GMO advocates, Seralini and [Don Huber](http://www.biofortified.org/2013/11/dr-huber-turns-down-my-generous-offer/), who’s been claiming for years without evidence that a “superbug” related to GMOs is causing disease in animals and humans). > [@](#): > > There’s been NO testing on humans. None. Except there has - there’ve been two feeding studies on golden rice alone.\* As for the “medically qualified toxicopathologist” (whatever that may be), waving his hands in the air about “toxins” and “allergens” rings hollow when we’ve been eating GM food for nearly 20 years, and no toxic or allergic effects have ever been documented. The rest of **whatsomattu** ’s diatribe is standard bull from the anti-GMO playbook - Michael Taylor blah blah, anonymous undocumented Monsanto employee tells all blah blah. > [@whatsomattu](#): > > Wow, Cecil: what a bunch of misinformation, half-truths and outright wrong stuff. My irony meter has exploded in a cloud of electrons. What with the spew I’ve heard lately from anti-GMOers, my year’s supply of irony meters is now lasting on average about a week. \*one of these two studies apparently didn’t obtain proper informed consent from study subjects, but its findings have not been seriously challenged. ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/70 "2014-08-04T17:04:37Z")
Just plain false, Jackmanii I’ll just pick apart ONE of your points: that the FDA and EPA test for human safety. According to the lawyers, you know, the American Bar Association: The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992)20 places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”21 So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety. FDA guidance to industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary “consultation procedures,” but still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data.22 ]There is currently no regulatory scheme requiring GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.23 [http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba\_health\_esource\_home/aba\_health\_law\_esource\_1302\_bashshur.html](http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html) Also, it would be nice if you actually cited, you know, sources for your stuff instead of just making it up as you go. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/71 "2014-08-04T17:07:40Z")
It might also be a good idea when “researching” GMOs to avoid [naturalsociety.com](http://naturalsociety.com), which is a hotbed of alt lunacy on a variety of topics, including vaccination (don’t miss their searing revelations on the “hoax” that vaccination eliminated polio, or that the HPV vaccine developer admitted it’s useless - another whopper). ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/72 "2014-08-04T17:25:23Z")
So all those doctors and scientists who signed the statement which you are ignoring – the one that says maybe GMO’s aren’t that safe? – are just what? Quacks and charlatans? And am I supposed to just give you a pass on your statement that the “FDA and EPA” actually regulate our food safety? You just made that up. And it’s false. And show me a SINGLE study of human feeding of GMO’s which says they are “safe.” Just one and I’ll go away. Lastly, I met a farmer last week in Iowa. A GMO-free farmer. He said cattle farmers in his area are asking for his corn because their cows are getting bigger faster on it. It’s just an anecdote but it doesn’t make it any less valid. I met a Monsanto genetics engineer – that’s what he called himself. He was in the town where they were located. He admitted that GMO’s have never been “tested safe.” It’s anonymous. I didn’t get his name. Doesn’t make it false. ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/73 "2014-08-04T17:32:14Z")
And as to the myth that GMO’s bring bigger yields, check out this radical publication – Modern Farmer: > **[The Post-GMO Economy](https://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/post-gmo-economy/)** > > One mainstream farmer is returning to conventional seed - and he's not alone Staring at a future of lower corn prices and higher inputs, Huegerich decided to experiment. Two years ago, he planted 320 acres of conventional corn and 1,700 with GMO corn. To his delight, the conventional fields yielded 15 to 30 more bushels per acre than the GMO fields, with a profit margin of up to $100 more per acre. And so in 2013, he upped the ante, ordering six varieties of conventional seeds for close to 750 acres and GMOs for his remaining acres. ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/74 "2014-08-04T17:33:39Z")
> [@whatsomattu](#): > > But here’s a few brave ones: > > [http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150-no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety](http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150-no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety) They are a valid scientific organization, and yet, they have a [manifesto](http://earthopensource.org/index.php/about/manifesto) on their website? This website denies any agricultural advancement in the last 100 years. They want to get back to the time when _people were close to the earth_. We have 7 billion people to feed. Maybe that in itself is not sustainable, but we cannot go back to the times were we were producing an average of 1/5 the amount of food per acre. We cannot go back to the time when it took 11 times more man-hours to produce the same amount of poultry. And we can’t even if we wanted to. Back in 1900, most people – even in the U.S. – lived on farms. Now, most people in the world live in the cities. There are fewer farmers, so they have to produce more and be more efficient. You can’t go back when most people were subsistent farmers. They don’t want to go back. Industrialization happens because people leave their farms to work in sweatshops because no matter how bad a sweatshop may be, it’s way better than living on a subsistent farm. Back in the late 19th century, American Indians turned from vicious savages who must destroy to a noble people who live in harmony with nature and had a vast understanding of the _spiritual world_. We also started reimagining the _cowboy_ (which use to be an insulting name for a ranch hand). Instead of a lowly paid employee who blew what little pay on booze, he has turned into the true individual who takes matters into his own hand. This happened because we _tamed_ the West and we started getting all misty-eyed over a bygone era. American had grown up. The frontier of our frontier nation disappeared. In a similar way, we now wax nostalgic over farming. We think of farmers as people of the earth in harmony with nature. We forget that in the days of old farmers were dirt poor and hungry. They barely scraped by. They would work their land until it could no longer produce. Every scrap of food was important. This changed in the early 1900s and later in the 1940s when farms became first mechanized and later industrialized. It freed up labor to move to cities. More food was produced. Less ecological damage was done. (At one time, we paid farmers to let field lay fallow. It was good for the environment, but was bad politics to pay people not to work.) No one has stated exactly how GMO is worse than the cross breeding and other genetic manipulations we use. Give a scientific explanation. Don’t simply blow smoke. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/75 "2014-08-04T17:42:50Z")
> [@whatsomattu](#): > > Wow, Cecil: what a bunch of misinformation, half-truths and outright wrong stuff. I’d expect better from you. > > First, this line: That said, GMOs are much more closely regulated than farming experiments of old. > > Just not true. The guy who wrote the original GMO policy “no safety testing required” was a paid Monsanto attorney at the time he wrote it. Michael Taylor then became a Monsanto VP before Obama appointed or promoted him to the No. 2 spot at the FDA where he gets to continue the “no testing required” policy. So there is NO government regulation/oversight of GMO’s in the US. I’d ask you for a citation on this, but given what you write below, I’m rather think that would be a waste of time. For fuck’s sake, you violate [Seralini’s Rule](http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/06/the-seralini-rule-gmo-bogus-study.html) - don’t do that. > [@](#): > > The scientific consensus is far from certain that they are safe. There’s been NO testing on humans. None. Well, other than a 50-year natural experiment in the USA. But what I’m really curious about is the thought process behind this. What, exactly, is it about GMOs that requires extreme care? There’s nothing in the basic science that would imply that they’re dangerous. There’s no reason to be particularly afraid of them - it’s like if someone brings out a new hybrid brand of potatoes - you think that gets a ton of attention? No - of course not. We don’t even think particularly hard about it! There’s nothing that would imply that GMOs are dangerous. And then animal testing showed universally good results. > [@](#): > > As to the Seralini study, yes, it was withdrawn after the publication hired a former Monsanto scientist and gave him editorial direction, Richard E. Goodman. So… what does that have to do with anything? Serious question - why should I care that the publication hired [a scientist that you can play 6-degrees-of-separation](http://angryscience.yougetwhatyouwant.org/how-monsanto-controls-the-fda-6-degrees-of-kevin-bacon/) with? Why is that relevant? Even if we’re thinking about conflicts of interest, why should it matter that Richard E. Goodman worked for Monsanto? I’m not seeing the conflict. He doesn’t work there now, does he? He isn’t still on the payroll, is he? But we don’t even have to go that far. It doesn’t _matter_ if Goodman was indebted to Monsanto, or if there was any reason to suspect conflict of interest; none of that would have any real impact on what the study actually shows. And Seralini’s rat study is the type of pseudoscientific drivel that no self-respecting publication _should_ publish - I haven’t seen a study so obviously flawed since Regnerus’s gay parenting study (you know, the one that didn’t actually interview more than 2 gay parents). Even if it hadn’t been retracted, it would still be crap whose data is completely insufficient to determine any results. 20 (or was it 10?) rats per group with a rat strain that has a baseline cancer incidence of upwards of 50% (with some studies putting it closer to 70% or 80%)? Missing vital statistical analysis? Data presented in graphs which are nearly impossible to read? Cherry-picking results (where’s it mentioned in the paper that the male rats that drank straight roundup were statistically significantly likely to live longer)? It’s complete garbage! Not only that, but the fact that it’s garbage _should_ be immediately apparent to anyone who takes the time to actually read it. > [@](#): > > [Dirty Details Behind the Attacks on Seralini's Notorious GMO Rat Study](http://naturalsociety.com/sordid-details-behind-attacks-seralinis-notorious-gmo-rat-study/) Link’s dead for me. Google found it, but the website appears down. I’m not particularly interested, honestly. You might as well link me an article by the AFA defending Regnerus’s study. It’s garbage, and by defending it, all you’re doing is showing that you haven’t read it, or you’re so ideologically biased to not recognize the myriad of flaws. > [@](#): > > Lastly, there is no scientific consensus GMO’s are safe [Really? News to me.](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9gJwulXnO_o/Ue8hgkh4YkI/AAAAAAABCT8/1o4qQ40IjHQ/s1600/GMAuthoritiesnew1.jpg) In fact, the reality of what is happening is that there is a very strong scientific consensus, with a very small minority of scientists taking the position that GMOs are not safe. The majority of major scientific organizations with a relevant interest (including many government-run organizations, such as the FDA) are very convinced. Those who aren’t would do well to examine the peer-reviewed literature - while the consensus among scientists may not be 100%, almost every single paper which purported to find issues with GMOs was widely discredited - not because “Big Ag” didn’t like it, but because the papers were pseudoscientific garbage - things like the Seralini study! Large-scale metareviews have found next to nothing. So why is that? Why can’t these scientists who feel that the scientific evidence against GMOs is good publish papers showing it? Well, if the Seralini study is any indicator, it’s because it simply is not supported by the evidence. So with GMOs, like with AGW, like with vaccines, like with evolution, like with HIV, like with any such idea, you end up with a large scientific organizations (WHO, FDA, AMA, CDC, USNAS, AAAS, [et cetera](http://www.skeptiforum.org/richard-green-on-the-scientific-consensus-and-gmos/)) and the peer-reviewed literature showing a strong consensus ([even if you ignore the studies with a link to the industry, which you really shouldn’t](http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-studies/)). And then you still have morons like Richard Lindzen, Andrew Wakefield, Michael Behe, Peter Duesburg… People who have legitimate degrees in their fields and who still end up on the wrong side of history. People like Giles-Eric Seralini. You can collect signatures all you want; the fact is that those signatories have yet to present any convincing evidence that what they say has any merit. Hell, you can find the same dumb petitions for antivaccination campaigns, for AGW denialists, for young earth creationists. They do nothing except expose the signatories as unscientific, credulous fools who are letting their personal beliefs lead the evidence, rather than the other way around. If they had the evidence to back up their claims, they wouldn’t be signing petitions, they’d be publishing peer-reviewed papers and convincing others. > [@](#): > > and there’s many scientists who believe otherwise. Of course, most Ag scientists who publicly state this find themselves rapidly unemployed, so it’s not a popular opinion to take. Citation needed. > [@](#): > > But here’s a few brave ones: > > [http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150-no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety](http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150-no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety) I’ll see your 86 scientists who disagree with the consensus on GMO safety and raise you [over 30,000 who disagree with the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change](http://www.petitionproject.org/). These aren’t brave, maverick scientists, daring to stand up to authorities. These are _morons_. > [@](#): > > Another signatory, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse impacts on beneficial and non-target organisms. Of course, the disappointing fact about that is that he almost certainly is referring to a list of studies including, among others, studies by Pusztai, Carmen, and Seralini - studies that have been long since rejected as incredibly poorly-designed and unscientific. ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/76 "2014-08-04T17:54:41Z")
Given this giant scientific consensus you claim exists that GMOs are safe for human consumption, you should have NO trouble at all easily and quickly finding a single study that says feeding humans GMO’s is safe. We’ve been eating them in the US for 30 years so there must be all kinds of studies of GMO’s affect on US human health. I’m waiting. Maybe you could address this study too while you’re at it: that pregnant women have the BT toxin in their blood: > **[Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21338670/)** > > Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to... According to an analysis conducted by researchers from the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Canada, 100 percent of pregnant women and their unborn babies tested positive for GMO toxins in their blood, proving that transgenic materials are not effectively broken down and eliminated during digestion as we have all been told. Learn more: [Study: GMO toxins found in nearly all pregnant women, unborn babies - NaturalNews.com](http://www.naturalnews.com/037493_gmo_toxins_pregnant_women.html#ixzz39RkepNEW) ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/77 "2014-08-04T18:14:05Z")
> [@whatsomattu](#): > > So all those doctors and scientists who signed the statement which you are ignoring – the one that says maybe GMO’s aren’t that safe? – are just what? Quacks and charlatans? Well, in a word? Yes. It’s more nuanced than that, obviously, but these people are bucking the consensus not via scientific inquiry and peer-reviewed papers published in major journals (on a quick side note, if Seralini’s 2012 rat paper had actually shown what it purported to show, you would have had Nature, Science, NEJM, and JAMA fighting over rights to publish it. It wouldn’t have shown up in some third-tier toxicology journal, or subsequently in a pay-to-publish vanity journal with an impact factor of 0, it would have been the kind of paper that’s a real game-changer!), but rather via a petition. They’re appealing entirely to their own authority. I’m sorry, _that’s not good enough!_ > [@](#): > > And am I supposed to just give you a pass on your statement that the “FDA and EPA” actually regulate our food safety? You just made that up. And it’s false. Your quote from the ABA is interesting, but does nothing to support your claim that the FDA and EPA do not regulate food safety. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t most pharmaceutical trials run by, yanno, the company pushing the drug? This makes sense - why should the FDA be required to spend the not unsubstantial amount of money to test these products for the companies? Indeed, the impression I’m getting is that before such a product is allowed to hit the market, the FDA, USDA, and EPA need to look over these safety studies, published in peer-reviewed journals. The company can’t just tell the FDA, “Yep, these are fine”. They have to publish real research supporting the claim. Are you asserting that these companies commit large-scale fraud in their research? That their data cannot be trusted for some reason? > [@](#): > > And show me a SINGLE study of human feeding of GMO’s which says they are “safe.” Just one and I’ll go away. [While not designed specifically to test safety, you’d think that if this GMO wasn’t safe, it would have turned up, right?](http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/why-are-human-nutrition-studies-on-golden-rice-necessary-what-have-they-shown) Of course, the question is almost transparently specious. Genetic modification is a tool. There are countless possibilities with it, many of which may or may not be “safe”. Obviously, a plant which expresses genes that insert arsenic into it will not be safe for human consumption. So what you’re asking for is either: a) Evidence that a certain GMO is safe; so basically proof that the process can result in something which is safe. Which is kind of ridiculous. b) Evidence for all GMOs, which is not forthcoming. > [@](#): > > Lastly, I met a farmer last week in Iowa. A GMO-free farmer. He said cattle farmers in his area are asking for his corn because their cows are getting bigger faster on it. It’s just an anecdote but it doesn’t make it any less valid. I met a Monsanto genetics engineer – that’s what he called himself. He was in the town where they were located. He admitted that GMO’s have never been “tested safe.” It’s anonymous. I didn’t get his name. > > Doesn’t make it false. And I met with a top official in the FDA the other day who assured me that Monsanto has paid off every single agricultural scientist in the United States of America. Believe me? :rolleyes: Anecdotes are not evidence, and unverifiable statements are as useful to us as claims that God Almighty came down and told you the truth of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![whatsomattu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/da6949/32.png) [@whatsomattu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsomattu)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/78 "2014-08-04T18:31:33Z")
So you got, nothing. Asked to find a single study of how these GMO’s have been “widely and scientifically showed to be safe” for humans you got…nada, zilch, bupkus. What a bunch of nonsense. And you expect us to believe this garbage? Just words. Words. Words. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/79 "2014-08-04T18:42:20Z")
> [@whatsomattu](#): > > Given this giant scientific consensus you claim exists that GMOs are safe for human consumption, you should have NO trouble at all easily and quickly finding a single study that says feeding humans GMO’s is safe. We’ve been eating them in the US for 30 years so there must be all kinds of studies of GMO’s affect on US human health. > > I’m waiting. Has there ever been a human feeding study for _any_ food? No, seriously, has there? I don’t think so. Couldn’t name one, anyways. In fact, [there are very good reasons why we don’t use human testing to determine these things](http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/food-safety.aspx#q8) - both in GMOs and in conventional food. > [@](#): > > Maybe you could address this study too while you’re at it: that pregnant women have the BT toxin in their blood: > > [Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada - PubMed](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670) > > According to an analysis conducted by researchers from the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Canada, 100 percent of pregnant women and their unborn babies tested positive for GMO toxins in their blood, proving that transgenic materials are not effectively broken down and eliminated during digestion as we have all been told. Did you even spend 5 minutes looking into this paper? Because I google the name, and on he first page, find: > **[There’s no Bt in your blood](https://biofortified.org/2012/10/03/bt-in-blood/)** > > There have been quite a few analyses of the Aris and Leblanc paper Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada, but sinc… > **[If you record noise, you don't get music --- you get nonsense.](http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2011/04/it-you-record-noise-you-dont-get-music.html)** > > Many women, no Cry (Reposted from Marcel Kuntz' website (English version page) 29 Avril 2011) A recent publication by Aziz Ari... [Monsanto Corn | Snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/monsantocorn.asp) (yes, fucking _snopes_) [http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/cry1ab/pages/default.aspx](http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/cry1ab/pages/default.aspx) I mean, if you look at the criticisms there, there are some pretty obvious flaws - like, you know, _blaming bt prevalence on GMOs despite having absolutely no analysis of what the people ate!_ No, really: > [@](#): > > The assumption that GM foods are the source of the Cry1Ab protein > > The authors do not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the protein. No information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative. > > Several insecticidal formulations (e.g. Delfin, Dipel) contain a blend of crystallised proteins, (including Cry1Ab) and livingBtkspores that germinate into the bacterium that then produces the proteins. These formulations have been applied worldwide, including in Australia, for decades. They are applied to crops such as broccoli, cauliflower, celery, melons, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, cucumbers, turnip, grapes, kiwi-fruit, citrus, avocados. They are used both commercially and by home gardeners and are permitted for use on organically-certified crops. > > In comparison, the consumption of food derived from GM corn containing the Cry1Ab protein (no other currently commercialised GM crop species contain this gene) is recent and relatively minor. The corn lines containing the Cry1Ab protein are mostly used for animal feed and for processing into refined products such as corn syrup and corn starch which, because of processing, contain negligible levels of any protein. None of the GM corns produced so far are popcorn or sweetcorn lines and are therefore not consumed directly. Therefore, ingestion of Cry1Ab by humans via GM corn is not likely to be significant compared to conventional and organic produce sources… That’s kind of fundamental, don’t’cha think? That’s the kind of thing that should be established very early on when talking about GMOs. Who showed you this study, anyway? > [@](#): > > Learn more: [Study: GMO toxins found in nearly all pregnant women, unborn babies - NaturalNews.com](http://www.naturalnews.com/037493_gmo_toxins_pregnant_women.html#ixzz39RkepNEW) …Right. Buddy, if you’re still trusting NaturalNews as a source, then you are quite possibly beyond help. NaturalNews is quite possibly the very worst source for medical or environmental news on the planet - the only way you could do worse is to aim for [Rense.com](http://Rense.com) or Whale.to. Seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571/80 "2014-08-04T18:54:13Z")
> [@whatsomattu](#): > > So you got, nothing. This is yet another great pseudo-science classic: the demand for “that one study” that will almost certainly never happen. See also: vax-antivax study. Human feeding studies are extremely difficult, expensive, and entirely unnecessary. They have never been performed for _any_ food. At least you _could_, in theory, perform them without serious ethical concerns. But would it convince anyone? If Monsanto took the massive expenditure of time and money to publish this study, do you know what the immediate response would be? “Oh, it’s just an industry study - they’re obviously just making things up”. But hey - why aren’t the various anti-GMO people doing this study? I mean, it is sort of ironic that at one hand you’re complaining about industry-funded studies; on the other hand it’s all up to those same industries to fund this particularly onerous, expensive, and complex study… Why haven’t you guys made this study happen yet? You guys are worried - a well-designed epidemiological study could help confirm that. Of course, you’d need to actually design it well, and anti-GMO studies are currently batting pretty damn close to zero when it comes to good study design. It’s not hard, you guys just don’t bother doing it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-no-one-can-seriously-dispute-what/694571.md?page=5)