# Has any harm been proven to be caused by GMO foods? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2016, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072 "2016-03-25T00:30:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**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:** [March 29, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/81 "2016-03-29T21:34:15Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Wow, and this comes from someone accusing _ **me** _ of dishonest tactics because I cite concerns about the indisputable strong commercial incentives to promote GMO! What are you suggesting? That I made the quote up? That it’s discredited by the fact that biased advocacy groups are using it? Or what? I stated that I could not find a direct link for the quote, and that a Google search only turned it up on anti-GMO websites. The same quote does appear at the start of one of the chapters in the Royal Soc. of Canada panel recommendations. As with the websites I cited, there is no direct reference or attribution for the quote. Was Nature Biotechnology (or one of its contributors) even referring specifically to genetically modified crops, or to biotechnology in general? Who knows? Given that Nature Biotechnology has in the 15 years since that report appeared gone on record in support of GM crop technology (as I demonstrated in a previous post), citing that one otherwise unattributed quote to indicate the journal’s position as being GMO-suspicious/hesitant is not quite accurate. As to the quote appearing on anti-GMO websites without further explanation - well, that’s another classic tactic of the woo-driven. Pick out a damning-sounding quote from someone who can be held up as an Authority, and post the bejesus out of it without further explanation. Example: “The only safe vaccine is one that is never given.” (attributed to James Shannon, former director of the NIH). You will find that one plastered over numerous antivaccine websites. As others have noticed, the context in which the statement was supposedly made is never provided. Logically, one can surmise that an NIH director might have been queried about vaccine safety and responded that since no medical intervention is wholly without risk, the only completely safe vaccine is no vaccine at all. And yet the quote is thrown out there to serve an agenda of which no NIH director has ever approved. \*by the way, [this article](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/gmo-fears-do-not-translate-to-the-average-consumer-1.1362542) suggests that most Canadians are not stirred up about claimed GMO food hazards, and that the Canadian government has approved dozens of GM crop varieties. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/82 "2016-03-29T21:43:57Z")
Speaking of the situation in Canada, here’s Health Canada’s position on GM food safety: \ ***"Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that genetically modified foods are less safe that those foods produced using conventional techniques?** After twelve years of reviewing the safety of novel foods, Health Canada is not aware of any published scientific evidence demonstrating that novel foods are any less safe than traditional foods. The regulatory framework put in place by the federal government ensures that new and modified foods can be safely introduced into the Canadian diet."\* [http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg\_gen\_mod-eng.php](http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php) ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/83 "2016-03-29T21:46:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But that’s completely cherry-picking two sentences, out of hundreds, to give the false impression that **wolfpup** is trying to insinuate unspecified harms caused by GMOs. > > Which is **directly contradicted by the sentences immediately following the ones you quoted above** So then why even make the statement? There is only one reason: to attempt to attach some sort of negative insinuations to GMO\*. If wolfpup agrees that there is no known problems with GMO then going on about discreditable companies does not clarify the issue. (\* - I suppose the other reason would be to “internet argue”: to continue to bring up unrelated facts and opinions in an attempt to argue that one is not completely wrong.) ---
**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:** [March 29, 2016, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/84 "2016-03-29T22:06:48Z")
Not to engage in a further “witch hunt”, but here is one of multiple examples of the shill gambit [from the GMO labeling thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=786583&page=3) > [@wolfpup](#): > > And those who are working in biotech tend to have a vested interest in it. After all, who better to understand the potential dangers of tobacco than scientists working for tobacco companies – the ones who established for us, positively and truly, that not only was there no danger in smoking cigarettes, ads informed us that it was actually healthful! ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/85 "2016-03-29T22:22:36Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > The same quote does appear at the start of one of the chapters in the Royal Soc. of Canada panel recommendations. As with the websites I cited, there is no direct reference or attribution for the quote. In what way is “_Editors - Nature Biotechnology (October 2000)_” not a direct reference or attribution? :rolleyes: And speaking of “deception”, a word that you use a lot, the quote doesn’t merely “appear at the start of one of the chapters”, it is the only such headline quote in the entire paper, and it appears at the very beginning, at the start of Chapter 1, so as I said, it’s intended as the theme for the entire document. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Given that Nature Biotechnology has in the 15 years since that report appeared gone on record in support of GM crop technology (as I demonstrated in a previous post), citing that one otherwise unattributed quote to indicate the journal’s position as being GMO-suspicious/hesitant is not quite accurate. First, the quote is attributed, so you’re wrong about that. Second, “supporting GM crop technolgy” is orthogonal to the issue of regulation and prudent evidence-based requirements for safety. I support GM crop technology, too. So you’re wrong about that, too. Third, the journal appears neither “suspicious” nor “hesitant” but simply scientifically conservative and prudent, as science should be. As evidenced by an entire chapter (Chapter 8) of the cited RSC report on the subject of precautionary principles. (Except, of course, big-money industrial “science”, which doesn’t give a crap about “precautionary” anything. They deny climate change, too.) So I guess you strike out with three tries and three wrongs. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Speaking of the situation in Canada, here’s Health Canada’s position on GM food safety: > > \ ***"Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that genetically modified foods are less safe that those foods produced using conventional techniques?** > > After twelve years of reviewing the safety of novel foods, Health Canada is not aware of any published scientific evidence demonstrating that novel foods are any less safe than traditional foods. The regulatory framework put in place by the federal government ensures that new and modified foods can be safely introduced into the Canadian diet."\* > > [http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg\_gen\_mod-eng.php](http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php) I’m well aware of that. But you were the one complaining about context. I think folks interested in context [should go and read the entire Health Canada position statement](http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/index-eng.php), which for some reason you failed to provide a link to. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/86 "2016-03-29T22:23:50Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Has either question actually been answered in this thread? I see a lot of hostile language going back and forth, but the actual concrete factual answers seem lacking. Yes. \*\*The answer to the question “Has harm been proven?” is _“No”._ The answer to the question “Is there a significant risk of harm in the future?” is _“There’s no evidence for any such risk, but the future development of the technology is still so open-ended that we can’t say for sure at present.”_\*\* > [@Deeg](#): > > So then why even make the statement? As part of the general discussion of relative and potential risks of GMOs, and the context for assessing such risks. What’s wrong with that? Recall that the basic one-sentence answers to the above questions that I repeated for **Trinopus** were established within the first few posts in this thread. The contextual issues of how we can assess the reliability of those answers, and related questions of trustworthiness and ulterior motives of different sources, were raised by **Stranger On A Train** as early as **post #2**. This whole thread from its inception has been about how to evaluate scientific knowledge on GMOs **as well as** what that scientific knowledge tells us about the simple question asked in the OP. So it’s a rather sleazy tactic to accuse **wolfpup** of “making the statement” as though it was a completely irrelevant side-issue whose introduction could have “only one reason”, namely dishonest insinuation. Bullshit: the discussion of the reliability of agribusiness in evaluating science has been ongoing throughout the thread, and it wasn’t **wolfpup** who brought it up. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/87 "2016-03-29T22:27:51Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > In what way is “_Editors - Nature Biotechnology (October 2000)_” not a direct reference or attribution? :roll eyes: C’mon, you know very well what that means. Show us the article or editorial it comes from. If you can’t find it or know what its context and significance are, maybe you shouldn’t be citing it. > [@wolfpup](#): > > …big-money industrial “science”, which doesn’t give a crap about “precautionary” anything. Poison that well, baby. Pretend all of agricultural biotech science is “industrial”-tainted. That really helps your cause. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/88 "2016-03-29T22:59:49Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > C’mon, you know very well what that means. Show us the article or editorial it comes from. [Here you go.](http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v18/n10/full/nbt1000_1021b.html) In case you have a firewall block, here’s some textual context: > [@](#): > > [June 2000 editorial:] > > A cardinal scientific principle (if not always a strictly observed practice) is that sources of experimental bias should be eliminated if possible or (if they are not) at least explored and acknowledged. The truth is that instances where this apparently universally accepted precept is ignored are commonplace when even well-intentioned scientists undertake goal-directed research. > > There are many illustrations in biotechnology of the distorting influence of the goal. […] > > The trouble with goal-directed research is that the goal acts like a magnet, drawing the focus of attention in one direction rather than another. The magnet can be a positive aid to efficiency, determining which experiments should be performed and on what time scale. Polarizing the direction of research is not necessarily a bad thing; polarizing the interpretation of results clearly is. A negative result ought to be as valuable as a positive one. In reality, however, it rarely is. It is not valuable in advancing a carefully constructed theory. It is not valuable in addressing a goal. It is not valuable in impressing your boss, or the CEO, or the shareholders. […] > > [October 2000 response from a reader:] > > I read with much dismay your editorial in the June 2000 issue, “In praise of pessimism.” […] > > It is appropriate to be reminded of the perils of allowing objectivity to slip through our hands, for whatever reason. That is the “glad” news reported in the editorial. It is not appropriate to encourage pessimism. It undermines the very reason that we seek knowledge. > > [Reply from the editors in the same issue:] > > It is still not clear that biotechnology needs optimists. Biotechnology does need people with vision—as researchers, managers, and investors. But if they see only goals, then their vision amounts to nothing more than good intentions or wishful thinking. If they see only their immediate circumstances, then their vision contributes merely to problem solving. It is those who can anticipate a series of eventualities and prepare themselves for concomitant action that are more likely to succeed in the long run. The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable of science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or foolhardy behavior. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2016, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/89 "2016-03-29T23:12:51Z")
I would have to pay to see the entire editorial from 2000. Nowhere in your excerpts do I see any mention of GM foods or agricultural applications. “Biotechnology” is a very broad term. \*"Biotechnology is the use of living systems and organisms to develop or make products, or “any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use” (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2).[1] Depending on the tools and applications, it often overlaps with the (related) fields of bioengineering, biomedical engineering, biomanufacturing, etc… The wide concept of “biotech” or “biotechnology” encompasses a wide range of procedures for modifying living organisms according to human purposes, going back to domestication of animals, cultivation of plants, and “improvements” to these through breeding programs that employ artificial selection and hybridization. Modern usage also includes genetic engineering as well as cell and tissue culture technologies. The American Chemical Society defines biotechnology as the application of biological organisms, systems, or processes by various industries to learning about the science of life and the improvement of the value of materials and organisms such as pharmaceuticals, crops, and livestock.[3] As per European Federation of Biotechnology, Biotechnology is the integration of natural science and organisms, cells, parts thereof, and molecular analogues for products and services.[4] Biotechnology also writes on the pure biological sciences (animal cell culture, biochemistry, cell biology, embryology, genetics, microbiology, and molecular biology). In many instances, it is also dependent on knowledge and methods from outside the sphere of biology including: bioinformatics, a new brand of computer science bioprocess engineering biorobotics chemical engineering"\* > **[Biotechnology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology)** > > Biotechnology is the integration of natural sciences and engineering sciences in order to achieve the application of organisms, cells, parts thereof and molecular analogues for products and services. The term biotechnology was first used by Károly Ereky in 1919, meaning the production of products from raw materials with the aid of living organisms. The core principle of biotechnology involves harnessing biological systems and organisms, such as bacteria, yeast, and plants, to perform specif The... Attempting to extrapolate from the editorial excerpts you provided to how Nature Biotechnology feels about genetically modified food products seems like a risky endeavor.\* \*especially as I’ve demonstrated that the journal’s editorial board sees value in these products and thinks that introduction of specific items with particular consumer value will help overcome unjustified fears. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/90 "2016-03-29T23:18:14Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > \*especially as I’ve demonstrated that the journal’s editorial board sees value in these products and thinks that introduction of specific items with particular consumer value will help overcome unjustified fears. :rolleyes: Nobody has been disputing at all that _Nature Biotechnology_ editors “see value” in biotechnology products and espouse “overcoming unjustified fears” about them. So patting yourself on the back for having “demonstrated” those blindingly obvious facts is a bit of an oversell. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2016, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/91 "2016-03-29T23:30:14Z")
I’m glad you see it as “blindingly obvious”. Maybe now posters can stop flogging an out-of-context 2000 editorial excerpt in support of their views. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/92 "2016-03-30T00:22:18Z")
> [@spamforbrains](#): > > well, they are. Genes were modified in some way. There’s nothing inherently different about any of the ways to modify genes. Instead of shrieking and yelling about the method used to produce the altered organism, each altered organism should be carefully checked to ensure it is safe to eat, is humane (for altered animals), and is environmentally friendly. Regardless of the method used to generate it. This. I don’t believe any genetically modified foods currently on the market has been found to be harmful to eat. But there’s a vast potential, for both good and ill, in modern generic engineering. And i think foods created by slamming foreign genes into crops should be tested for safety before they are released. And i don’t think the US has adequate rules around that. Foods created by irradiating crops to randomly alter their genome should be tested for safety, too. I have much less concern for foods created by crossbreeding related individuals. We have a great deal of experience with that and understand the risks and benefits pretty well. By the way, i am looking forward to the introduction of Arctic apples on the market. They are genetically engineered to not go brown. I believe they will be the first genetically engineered foods in the US to directly benefit the consumer, rather than the farmer. (Lower prices from more efficient production may be an indirect benefit to the consumer. That’s different than “better apples”) That being said, there are lots of example of harm caused by genetically engineered crops. People living near farms exposed to roundup (especially in South America), cows on bgh getting more frequent udder infections, possible damage to monarch butterflies from BT corn pollen, roundup resistant weeds near fields of roundup resistant crops,… I certainly don’t want GMO foods outlawed, quite the contrary, i hope we will reap huge benefits from it. But i do wish we had a stronger regulatory environment around testing it. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2016, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/93 "2016-03-30T00:55:11Z")
[QUOTE=puzzlegal] That being said, there are lots of example of harm caused by genetically engineered crops. People living near farms exposed to roundup (especially in South America), cows on bgh getting more frequent udder infections, possible damage to monarch butterflies from BT corn pollen, roundup resistant weeds near fields of roundup resistant crops,… [/QUOTE] Expanded use of Roundup on “Roundup-ready” GM crops has been cited in claims that such crops increase exposure to herbicides. What actually has happened is that we’ve seen a marked drop in the use of more toxic and less environmentally-friendly herbicides in favor of Roundup, which while not totally innocuous has a much better safety profile both for users and the environment.\* Another side of the coin is that over-reliance on Roundup-ready crops seems to have sped up what inevitably happens whenever a pesticide is overused - resistance develops (a phenomenon we have seen since long before GM crops were ever introduced). As non-toxic/less toxic pesticides run into resistance problems, crops are being engineered to resist more toxic chemicals (like 2,4-D) which in turn will face increased resistance from weeds. In modern agriculture (going back many decades) it’s been a constant battle to stay ahead of weeds and use the least toxic alternatives to control them\*\*, while encouraging sound crop management and using protocols to minimize resistance development. As for rbGH, [this article](http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=37) notes that some studies suggest extra milk production in such cows may make them more susceptible to udder infection; one study however found rbGH protective against mastitis in an experimental model. \*I resist using Roundup or any herbicide unless absolutely necessary (i.e. on poison ivy). I have also fought a small online campaign to convince fellow gardeners not to use a popular chemical application (Preen) to prevent weed germination, finding it impossible to justify using a pre-emergent herbicide in a non-farm situation where my living does not depend on it. \*\*I have a vintage gardening book from WWII which gives advice to homeowners establishing Victory gardens to support the war effort (using your own produce meant more available for troops abroad). It is sobering and even scary to read about the chemicals recommended in the 1940s to control pests (other than weeds). Paris green and other forms of arsenic were highly praised. :eek: The good old days were not as golden as you might think. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/94 "2016-03-30T01:03:04Z")
Lots of old orchards and vineyards are now considered toxic contaminated sites due to the arsenic and other chemicals routinely used on them. Yeah, modern anti-pest chemicals are better than the older ones. ---
**Author:** ![mmmiiikkkeee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@mmmiiikkkeee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmiiikkkeee)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/95 "2016-03-30T14:35:35Z")
> [@sbunny8](#): > > Suppose I see an 8-year-old girl playing with a box of matches, right next to a haystack leaned up against a barn, and I tell her to stop. If she replies “I haven’t caused any harm”, that answer won’t satisfy me. Of course not, because harm has been caused, proven, and understood for centuries before; we know how combustion/ignition/etc works and the level of maturity/responsibility required to control it or use it safely. We’ve known what fire is and how to use it pretty much since we’ve been human… it’s one of the things we understand best. GMOs are much different in terms of our track record and study of harm they may or may not cause. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/96 "2016-03-30T22:16:17Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Nowhere in your excerpts do I see any mention of GM foods or agricultural applications. “Biotechnology” is a very broad term. So? Is there anything about the quoted text that you’re claiming is somehow inapplicable to “GM foods or agricultural applications”, as well as to other aspects of biotechnology? > [@Jackmannii](#): > > I’m glad you see it as “blindingly obvious”. I’m glad you finally recognize that. It sure took you long enough. This whole thread has been a slow-motion derail caused by your inexplicable inability to recognize that other posters are **agreeing** with you about the basic facts of GMO science as currently known, and your continued insistence on treating reasonable remarks about science as though they’re indistinguishable from irresponsible crackpottery. Your militant but foggy “scienthusiasm”, in which you’re only concerned with setting up and lambasting your own choice of obviously idiotic anti-science adversaries for their egregious errors, rather than engaging with what other posters are actually talking about, has been propagating your ignorance in this thread rather than fighting it. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2016, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/97 "2016-03-30T23:53:45Z")
I thought we might see a grudging _mea culpa_ from posters who hyped an excerpt from an editorial claimed to support warnings about GM foods - when it turns out that the editorial doesn’t even mention them. Guess not. Meantime, some foodies are sounding warnings about [the latest genetically modified vegetable](http://naturalnewd.com/articles/what-is-this-new-cross-breed-superfood#_) - and they may have a point. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/98 "2016-03-31T01:36:37Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I thought we might see a grudging _mea culpa_ from posters who hyped an excerpt from an editorial claimed to support warnings about GM foods - when it turns out that the editorial doesn’t even mention them. In other words, you **don’t** know of anything in the quoted text that is somehow inapplicable to GM foods or agricultural applications, as well as to other aspects of biotechnology. Thought not. Also, nobody in this thread ever claimed that this cited text **did** relate **specifically or exclusively** to GM foods or GMO agriculture, as opposed to biotechnology in general. So your complaint is invalid on that score too. [QUOTE=Jackmannii] Meantime, some foodies are sounding warnings […] [/quote] As usual, you’re changing the subject to what “some” other source not referenced by any poster here is saying about something else, to distract from the fact that you don’t actually have any valid criticisms of what posters in this thread are saying about the topics under discussion. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2016, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/99 "2016-03-31T04:56:24Z")
Isn’t his link a joke? I’m not familiar with the site, but i assume it’s something like “the onion”. I laughed, & read it to my husband. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2016, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/100 "2016-03-31T10:51:37Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Meantime, some foodies are sounding warnings about [the latest genetically modified vegetable](http://naturalnewd.com/articles/what-is-this-new-cross-breed-superfood#_) - and they may have a point. > [@puzzlegal](#): > > Isn’t his link a joke? I’m not familiar with the site, but i assume it’s something like “the onion”. I laughed, & read it to my husband. A site that bills itself as “America’s bullsh\*t [_sic_] news bureau, read by 7+ people and counting”, isn’t really something you can take seriously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072.md?page=6)