So stop lying and saying GMOs have been tested “safe” for human consumption. They haven’t.
Instead, Michael Taylor – MONSANTO’S ATTORNEY – wrote a policy saying they don’t need to be tested “safe” because they are “equivalent.” (A word that has no scientific meaning, BTW.)
Asked and answered.
They have, you just don’t understand it. Again, from Monsano’s website, because you weren’t paying attention:
This is absolutely standard operating procedure (again: no food has ever been “tested for human consumption” the way you demand), and it makes perfect sense. Human testing is extremely expensive and difficult when it comes to GMOs, and establishing that they are safe via equivalency is entirely reasonable.
That’s simply not true, I’m sorry. Equivalency is well-defined, and this definition is accepted by many major scientific organizations. It’s a relatively new term, but that doesn’t make it scientifically meaningless. And as a way of establishing the safety of GMO foods, it is widely accepted. If you consider that “not good enough”, then that’s on you, but I’d ask you why you think that any other non-GMO food is safe - after all, we’ve never tested them.
Here’s a summary of safety testing conducted on golden rice (genetically engineered to provide higher levels of vitamin A):
“In-depth investigation and understanding of the endosperm carotenoid biosynthetic pathway modification, which accurately explains the source of the golden colour of Golden Rice.
Less than 10 transgenic events (from about 2000 created) were carefully selected to be able to fulfil regulatory requirements regarding the genetic structure.
Gene expression profiling of thousands of genes was carried out, showing no unexpected changes or gross perturbances in the expression profile as compared to the parent material.
Allergenic potential has been ruled out at the prediction level using bioinformatic analysis of transgene proteins. The report is available online at Allergenonline.
High digestibility of the transgenic proteins in simulated gastric fluid has been demonstrated, further substantiating the claim of lack of allergenic potential.
It has been shown that Golden Rice diverts only a minuscule amount of carbon into carotenoids, so that changes in compositional analysis are minimal.
Various taste trials have been conducted which have not detected taste differences to the parent material.
Tests have been conducted to determine β-carotene bioavailability and bioconversion to retinol (the most significant source of Vitamin A) by feeding deuterium-labelled Golden Rice to adults in USA as well as to a small group of children in China. Both trials were highly successful in showing that the human intestine is indeed capable of extracting β-carotene out of Golden Rice in a highly efficient manner [1,2].”
Note that last part about human testing. No safety problems were found in either of those studies.
And how many of them are experts in agriculture, genetics and molecular biology?
You can find lists of supposed health professionals who denounce vaccination, water fluoridation, and other useful interventions - and these lists are endlessly cited by alties as though they signified anything. All they show is that is that you can find a very small minority that’s against something. It doesn’t mean the facts are there to uspport their beliefs.
Uh-huh. And I invented the Internet too.
http://gmo-journal.com/2009/09/06/introduction-to-the-regulation-of-genetically-modified-organisms-by-the-united-states-department-of-agriculture/
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/reg_of_biotech/eparegofbiotech.htm
http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm352067.htm
Al Gore will be so jealous.
So, whatsomattu, are you going to stick to your claim that “there is NO government regulation/oversight of GMO’s in the US.”?
Oh, and I met a leading anti-GMO activist last week in Trenton, New Jersey. He admitted to me that all the top anti-GMOers now realize that their claims are groundless, but are sticking to them so they keep getting contributions and lecture fees. 
A correction to something I mentioned earlier about anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva. She did link to Mike Adams article likening pro-GMO advocates to Nazi war criminals and calling for their murder (and later removed the link for whatever reason (embarassment? realization that it was spectacularly bad p.r. for her?). But I haven’t heard of her specifically supporting the passage in Adams’ article describing people’s “obligation” to kill pro-GMOers.
We don’t eat Golden rice in this country.
Corn and Soy? 30 years? Where’s the testing? It’s so damn safe show me the studies saying so.
The EPA page you cited has NO regulations of GMO plants. Here’s what it says about its “regulatory role” – pesticides. Period. There are no GMO regulations.
EPA’s Regulatory Role
EPA regulates pesticides, including genetically engineered pesticides, under the following two laws:
So, yeah, there is NO regulation of GMO crops in the U.S. As stated by the ABA. There is no government oversight. Period. It’s all industry-based. In other words, Monsanto gets to pick the scientists its going to pay to say whatever it is they want them to say.
So… we gave you what you wanted, and you are still unconvinced. Okay. Care to tell me what would convince you?
The point is that we’ve had GMO food for upwards of 30 years in the USA, and haven’t had GMO for upwards of 30 years in Europe. It’s the sort of natural experiment which you can, to some limited degree, draw conclusions from. Limited, obviously, but combine that with the vast amount of animal testing and, yes, basic science that goes into establishing these things as safe, and it’s just one more thing on the pile. You hand-wave all of that away… why?
You’ve provided NOTHING. Golden Rice? You can’t get that in MOST of the world. Nobody’s eating that. And there’s no human studies of it either. It’s not in any US stores. Show me a picture of a box of Uncle Ben’s “Golden Rice” please.
You guys are ridiculous. You say “They’re safe you morons.”
And I ask: show me the studies that say their safe and you have NOTHING. The Golden Rice study doesn’t say longterm feeding is safe. It just talks about nutrient levels.
And Golden Rice is the new kid on the block. Where’s the studies for Corn and Soy, which is in every supermarket in the U.S.?
You guys are pathetic liars. You say they’re regulated in the U.S. and you cite an EPA webpage that specifically says they are NOT. What you can’t doctor up you make up.
As for farmers, do you know any? Have you talked to a single farmer about GMOs and the cost and yields? I have.
And nobody wants to eat this crap. That’s why labeling has to be stopped at all costs by a Congress bought and paid for by Monsanto. (Obama too.) The food companies don’t care – they just want to make food that they can sell. If consumers know what’s in their food, they ALWAYS will prefer NON-GMO.
It’s only the seed companies that care about GMO and they only do because they make more money from this GMO crap.
So, pro-tip: if your business model requires customers to be ignorant and deliberately kept in the dark, you have a BAD business model.
Ha ha: this is hilarious. YOUR golden rice study specifically said they are NOT feeding it to animals or humans.
Here:
The Golden Rice project is already working with regulators in some target countries. Regulators allow informed individuals to eat Golden Rice prior to commercial regulatory clearance in a country for research purposes. However, the Golden Rice project has been careful to restrict usage only to that essential to the objectives of the project. Very few people have tasted Golden Rice so far. Human studies are essential to select lines with optimal nutritional characteristics.
Animal testing is not mandated by FDA, and because animals metabolise β-carotene differently from humans, such a test would not have answered the human bioavailability and bioconversion questions which need to be answered to tell us whether Golden Rice is as good or better than β-carotene delivered in capsules or as vegetables.
And, yeah, there are scientists including those at Harvard who have published studies on how Fluoridation of drinking water causes colon cancer and other things so, you can be wrong about more than one thing at a time.
[quote=“Jackmannii, post:84, topic:694571”]
Here’s a summary of safety testing conducted on golden rice (genetically engineered to provide higher levels of vitamin A):
“In-depth investigation and understanding of the endosperm carotenoid biosynthetic pathway modification, which accurately explains the source of the golden colour of Golden Rice.
Less than 10 transgenic events (from about 2000 created) were carefully selected to be able to fulfil regulatory requirements regarding the genetic structure.
Gene expression profiling of thousands of genes was carried out, showing no unexpected changes or gross perturbances in the expression profile as compared to the parent material.
Allergenic potential has been ruled out at the prediction level using bioinformatic analysis of transgene proteins. The report is available online at Allergenonline.
High digestibility of the transgenic proteins in simulated gastric fluid has been demonstrated, further substantiating the claim of lack of allergenic potential.
It has been shown that Golden Rice diverts only a minuscule amount of carbon into carotenoids, so that changes in compositional analysis are minimal.
Various taste trials have been conducted which have not detected taste differences to the parent material.
Tests have been conducted to determine β-carotene bioavailability and bioconversion to retinol (the most significant source of Vitamin A) by feeding deuterium-labelled Golden Rice to adults in USA as well as to a small group of children in China. Both trials were highly successful in showing that the human intestine is indeed capable of extracting β-carotene out of Golden Rice in a highly efficient manner [1,2].”
Note that last part about human testing. No safety problems were found in either of those studies.And how many of them are experts in agriculture, genetics and molecular biology?
You can find lists of supposed health professionals who denounce vaccination, water fluoridation, and other useful interventions - and these lists are endlessly cited by alties as though they signified anything. All they show is that is that you can find a very small minority that’s against something. It doesn’t mean the facts are there to uspport their beliefs.Uh-huh. And I invented the Internet too.
From the cited EPA link:
" the substance produced by a plant that has been genetically modified to resist disease comes under FIFRA authority" - so if a company (for instance) genetically engineers a plant to produce Bt toxin to kill bugs, the EPA has regulatory responsibilities involving that plant.
You said:
You are wrong.
OK, we have officially crossed over into full-blown crank magnetism here.
What’s next? Claims that Monsanto has engineered aluminum and barium-resistant crops so they can carry out their diabolical chemtrail schemes?* Accusations that we are paid corporate shills?
*I’m not making this up. People believe these things.
A legitimate point. However, in general, the evidence that non-celiac gluten sensitivity even exists is not very good. Nonetheless
Regards,
Shodan
“Having a background in dentistry and dental public health, * was taught that fluoride at recommended levels is safe and effective for the prevention of dental [cavities],” Bassin says in the statement. “All of [our analyses] were consistent in finding an association between fluoride levels in drinking water and an increased risk of osteosarcoma for males diagnosed before age 20, but not consistently for girls.”
Now that is just straight-up dishonest. I directly linked to an article talking about human studies. Look again! The reason nobody’s eating it is because it’s still in research and development! Its target market is not the USA; its target market is third-world countries.
Wait, what? Here’s 1783 studies that show no evidence of any negative health effects from GMO foods. Here’s 600 or so more including multiple large-scale metareviews. Here’s 126 which are independent - no connections to be agribusiness.
The problem is not “I have nothing”, the problem is that you refuse to acknowledge them, or fail to understand why they matter. You seem to reject the animal studies out of hand as sufficient to establish safety - placing you at odds with the vast consensus of relevant scientific authorities. I don’t know what else to say - there’s no way to convince someone whose standard of evidence is simply higher than is reasonable.
I wonder why? I suppose it has nothing to do with the massive, dishonest smear campaign by anti-GMO activists? The sad fact about GMOs is that this is a technology with immense potential for good that has been brought low by a misinformed public and neo-luddite terror about anything new. If I ask most of the people in my group of friends, I often hear things like “Didn’t that one study show that it caused cancer?” or “I don’t want a poison in my food” - woefully misinformed claims with no basis in reality (respectively, the seralini study has long since been refuted and retracted, and BT is completely harmless to humans) to be sure, but woefully misinformed claims with no basis in reality that anti-GMO groups have pushed! Or if you don’t hear that, you hear your typical “Monsanto is Satan” schtick, again often based on claims that are false, irrelevant, or misleading. It’s frustrating to see anti-science sentiment pushed like this.
Bullshit. The people suffering from vitamin A deficiency in Asia care. The papaya farmers in Hawaii who are losing whole crops to ringspot disease care (there’s a GMO strain which is immune to ringspot disease; regulators in Hawaii have tried to ban it for absolutely no good reason). People who understand science and see in genetic modification further ways to improve the output and resistance of crops in it (growing concerns in a world with an exploding human population) care. This shit matters.
Of course, it’s not just information that helps. It’s the full picture. I mean, if I told you:
“vaccines are known to cause brain inflammation. There’s no significant correlation between disease deaths and vaccines; death rates plummeted before the vaccines were introduced. Additionally, they contain or contained mercury, aluminium, and other known toxins. They’re not 100% effective. Most of the diseases we prevent against are not lethal in most cases.”
Technically, nothing in there is wrong. All those facts are technically true. But they paint a horribly distorted and biased picture - ignoring the massive good of vaccine, bringing up intentionally misleading fact that misses the point completely (for those wondering, it’s the “death rate” comment), and ignoring relevant confounding details. The term “informed consent” is not perfectly applicable here, but you can see the parallels. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. As said above, the sad fact here is that we have neo-luddite sentiment squashing a technology with great potential for good. “GMO” as a label is toxic. The products themselves are not.
I thought it was the AGW skeptics who are the braves ones? I can’t keep up.
You do jump around. First it was fluoridated water allegedly causing colon cancer - now you’re pointing to a study on osteosarcoma? There’s been followup since then and it doesn’t support earlier findings:
*"A partial report of a study from the Harvard School of Public Health, published in 2006, found that exposure to higher levels of fluoride in drinking water was linked to a higher risk of osteosarcoma in boys but not in girls. However, researchers linked to the study noted that early results from a second part of the study did not appear to match those of the report. They therefore advised caution in interpreting the results.
The second part of the Harvard study, published in 2011, compared the fluoride levels in bones near tumors in people with osteosarcoma to the levels in people with other types of bone tumors. The researchers found no difference between the fluoride levels in the two groups.
Two more recent studies have compared the rates of osteosarcoma in areas with higher versus lower levels of fluoridation in Ireland and the United States. Neither study found an increased risk of osteosarcoma in areas of water fluoridation."*
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk
Getting back to GMOs, whattsamattu, care to retract your claim that there is no governmental regulation of GMO safety in the United States? You’ve been supplied with ample documentation that multiple federal agencies do in fact oversee and regulate introduction of GMOs.
The legend of the Brave Maverick runs neck-and-neck with the Pharma Shill gambit among alt loons.
Refined granulated sugar made from sugarcane is 100% sucrose.
Refined granulated sugar made from sugar beets, on the other hand, is 100% sucrose, which is totally different.
I repeat, Philistine! 
As our friends Una and Fierra determined in a life-threatening (IIRC, Una is diabetic) experiment (it’s near the end), “The beet and cane versions were indistinguishable in appearance, but the cane batches tasted sweeter, their caramelized topping especially. It was a Pepsi vs. Coke difference, though: while Una preferred the ones made with cane sugar, Fierra fancied the faintly bitter bite of the beet.” Does the “bitter bite” come from hydrogen cyanide, a by-product of beet sugar refining? Fierra is British and possibly a spy. Is she accustomed to the vile bitter taste because the suicide pill in a fake tooth is leaking poison, inuring her to the effects of cyanide and turning her into a superhuman? Enquiring minds want to know!
Yes, I know. I was replying to a post about why people opposed it.
The first link only refers to already-sterile hybrids being unaffected, but obviously farmers wouldn’t be trying to replant sterile hybrids. They could very well try to replant non-sterile seed, though.
The second link says “Sterile seeds produce no pollen and could not therefore cross-pollinate other crops.”
Seeds don’t produce pollen, flowers do. If the crop is grain or another type of seed (soybeans, etc), you need pollen to travel from flower to flower to create the seeds that become the crop, so the parent plants do indeed produce pollen, or else they would be useless. If the crop is fruit, you need pollen to travel from flower to flower to produce the fruit, so the parent plants must produce pollen, or else they would be useless. The only plants that don’t need to produce pollen to yield a crop are root, stem and leaf crops.
Most GMOs so far are seed crops, so they must produce pollen to produce a crop, and there’s no way to contain that pollen in any case and prevent it from spreading either the Terminator genes or the GMO genes, which would affect not this generation, but the next one, either rendering the seeds sterile or inserting the modified genes into them. Which of those cases could potentially be worse is another issue, I was simply addressing the reason why certain people opposed the Terminator genes.
Interesting. I haven’t done a double-blind study myself, but as the difference apparently wasn’t enough to trigger a sense of distaste, I guess I won’t worry about it. I do appreciate the fact that the beet sugar is locally grown and doesn’t cause the environmental and cultural damage that cane sugar does.