19 Years of Feeding Animals GMO Shows No Harm

[pohibaba]

An article from Steven Novella's blog:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...shows-no-harm/

I'll just post the conclusion:

We now have a large set of data, both experimental and observational, showing that genetically modified feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There does not appear to be any health risk to the animals, and it is even less likely that there could be any health effect on humans who eat those animals.
In order to maintain the position that GMOs are not adequately tested, or that they are harmful or risky, you have to either highly selectively cherry pick a few outliers of low scientific quality, or you have to simply deny the science.
Here is a comprehensive list of animal feeding studies. Many of these studies are independent. The list included systematic reviews, all of which conclude that GMO feed is safe.
There is as strong a scientific consensus that GMOs do not present any novel health risk, that those in current use are safe, and that they pose no health risk to animals or humans, as there is a consensus for the safety and efficacy of vaccines or that humans are contributing significantly to global warming.

I haven't seen a thread on GMO here before. Any anti-science hippies have a rebuttal?

[ringthree]

Were people surprised by these findings? Almost all anti-GMO arguments were either anti-scientific or science fiction.

I am much more concerned with seed patenting.

[Restrat]

yeah the main problems are stuff like increasing pesticide use leading to more resistance, monocultures that are very vulnerable to a disease, contaminating wild species, etc.

[Waraji]

Was gonna post pointing out pesticide, but yeah. All for genetic manipulation, not pesticides. And yeah seed patenting is/will become a huge problem.

[BaneTheBrawler]

i for one welcome our carrot overlords

[notorious bum]

yeah the main problems are stuff like increasing pesticide use leading to more resistance, monocultures that are very vulnerable to a disease, contaminating wild species, etc.

This. Most people, that aren't Facebook monkeys who absorb all the dumb blog shit like "NatureNews" and so forth, are concerned with these agricultural practices that are associated with the GMO industry(which is about as autonomous as medicine/medical research is to the pharmaceutical industry).

A lot of talking points try to spin or lump intelligent arguments into a collective anti-GMO=anti-science debate, and this occurs throughout all media nowadays. This is partly bad journalism and partly more nefarious lobbying shit going on, I believe. I've only seen a handful of articles try to distance themselves from making blanket statements about those who are anti-GMO, but not in some ignorant buzzword sense, like most of the morons who parrot Facebook chain-mail.

I can smell a big agra talking point a mile away now, whenever I'm bored, looking at MJ or Salon comments. They usually always try to turn the narrative into "all GMO is beneficial because of food shortage, bigger yields, better food, etc.", which flies in the face of the problems based in the real world and the reasons why the majority of the world is food insecure(big irony is found here). If you disagree with any of these points, you are anti-science and you'd rather the world go hungry because you're like a Scientologist or, worse, Jenny McCarthy.

[Talint]

You guys wanna eat the zombie wheat?

[Kerberoz]

Increasing pesticide use? afaik, GM crops require less pesticide. Also, glyphosphate is less toxic (to animals) than pretty much anything used in the past.

Monoculture is a problem, but no moreso for GMOs than for traditional hybrids.

Glad to see no one's brought up the long-debunked "Monsanto seeds blew onto muh land and dey sued me!" bullshit.

[Ksandra]

Increasing pesticide use? afaik, GM crops require less pesticide. Also, glyphosphate is less toxic (to animals) than pretty much anything used in the past.

Monoculture is a problem, but no moreso for GMOs than for traditional hybrids.

Glad to see no one's brought up the long-debunked "Monsanto seeds blew onto muh land and dey sued me!" bullshit.

maybe I am wrong, but I thought they were talking about the plants' natural pesticide thing they are doing which is killing all the pollinators.

[kuronosan]

Increasing pesticide use? afaik, GM crops require less pesticide. Also, glyphosphate is less toxic (to animals) than pretty much anything used in the past.

Monoculture is a problem, but no moreso for GMOs than for traditional hybrids.

Glad to see no one's brought up the long-debunked "Monsanto seeds blew onto muh land and dey sued me!" bullshit.

Yea, they require less pesticide because they produce their own, which kills pollinating insects like BEES.

I don't have to tell you how horrible that actually is.

Second, nobody who is truly Anti-GMO gives a shit about how it affects people. It's more about how it affects the ecosystem (see above), farmers that choose to grow organic crop in lieu of GMO crop (economical), and how GMO has the potential to affect the natural order of plant growth (see ecosystem).

If anyone, ANYWHERE, thought that GMO crops posed a significant, direct risk to people, they're morons.

[BaneTheBrawler]

honestly a lot of the need for pesticides, both spray and gmo, could be eliminated simply through growing techniques. Some plants naturally repel certain types of pests, so if you plant them with others who repel other types, you can get a nigh invulnerable field of crops. It requires absolutely no additional hardware. Literally just a matter of driving in a different pattern.

We'd still want GMOs for enhanced yield and weather resilience, but those mods aren't the problem.

[notorious bum]

Keep in mind our garbage food producing monoculture basically serves the fast food industry. People worried about getting cancer or whatever from GMO green beans should worry more about their occasional trip to burger joints or various snack aisles.

[hey]

Sent this to my mom

I want food the way it was intended to be.

She is fucking crazy.

[Salodin]

So that's where you get it from. Fucking mamas boy.

[zoobernut]

Yea, they require less pesticide because they produce their own, which kills pollinating insects like BEES.

I don't have to tell you how horrible that actually is.

Second, nobody who is truly Anti-GMO gives a shit about how it affects people. It's more about how it affects the ecosystem (see above), farmers that choose to grow organic crop in lieu of GMO crop (economical), and how GMO has the potential to affect the natural order of plant growth (see ecosystem).

If anyone, ANYWHERE, thought that GMO crops posed a significant, direct risk to people, they're morons.

This is exactly what I was going to post. Thanks Kuro.

[Kuya]

What's the name of the gmo plant that produces it's own pesticides?

[BaneTheBrawler]

fuck, i cant remember the name but there's that wheat (i think wheat) crop that was supposedly eradicated but showed up in some guy's field recently.

[Waraji]

fuck, i cant remember the name but there's that wheat (i think wheat) crop that was supposedly eradicated but showed up in some guy's field recently.

You guys wanna eat the zombie wheat?

Colbert did a segment on that actually. See ^^

[BaneTheBrawler]

oh wow, same thread and everything. fuck. i thought it was in the grocery store thread.

[Restrat]

It makes Bt-Toxin, normally made by bacteria