New Scientific Findings on GMO foods

[The A Team]

Here is a new study on the health hazards of GMO foods these 2 links
Scientists Warn of Hazards of GMOs (https://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18515.cfm)
<table style="table-layout: fixed;" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><tr valign="top"> <td>
Back (javascript:history.back()) | PDF (https://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.pdf)
Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:438-443 ©Ivyspring International Publisher
Review
How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals
</td></tr></tr></tbody></table>
How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals (https://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm)

[jryeo]

These GM-linked effects are then considered as signs of toxicity in the 90 days, not proofs of toxicity. The biological plausibility of a subchronic or chronic side effect of the GM diet, linked to the new toxin in the mammalian regimen, or due to the mutagenesis effect of the genetic modification itself, is thus non negligible. Finally it should be stressed that statistically significant effects of GM diets, or of residues of pesticides that are contained by GMOs, have also been observed in other instances [21 (https://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm#B21)-25 (https://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm#B25)], but not in all studies [26 (https://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm#B26), 27 (https://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm#B27)] enlightening the necessity of a case-by-case approach, and that the real toxicological studies are quite limited up to date for that [28 (https://www.biolsci.org/v05p0438.htm#B28)]. All these observations taken together in our opinions do not allow a clear statement of toxic effects, but to suggest them as such, because they are clearly undeniable. Now, to any good researcher similar results would mean that there is much to be improved in the planning of experimental design; and thus to increase their resolution power to obtain unequivocal statements, for instance increasing the duration and/or the number of rats tested. Generally speaking it seems to us unbelievable that a risk assessment carried out only on forty rats of each sex receiving GM rich diets for 90 days (yielding results often at the limits of significance) have not been repeated and prolonged independently. We should overall take into account the fact that the analysed GM product could be fed long-term to people and animals of various ages and sexes, and with various pathologies.Read this carefully. They got no significant results indicating GM foods had degenerative effects in rats. The rest of the conclusion is speculative and biased against genetic modification. I resent bias in scientific papers - either for or against anything. Bias is not part of the scientific method and should not be published without a supported argument, which this article does not provide.

That said, hypothetically there is a lot that could go wrong with GM foods. This study did not find anything wrong. I'm hoping for more studies that will expand on the subject, as I don't feel it has been sufficiently studied to make a clear decision either way.

[The A Team]

I would prefer testing to be done independently, by many firms not affiliated with Monsanto etc. and before a product is put to market. Since a big percentage of food in the U.S. contains GMO's ... we are the test rats.


Read this carefully. They got no significant results indicating GM foods had degenerative effects in rats. The rest of the conclusion is speculative and biased against genetic modification. I resent bias in scientific papers - either for or against anything. Bias is not part of the scientific method and should not be published without a supported argument, which this article does not provide.

That said, hypothetically there is a lot that could go wrong with GM foods. This study did not find anything wrong. I'm hoping for more studies that will expand on the subject, as I don't feel it has been sufficiently studied to make a clear decision either way.