Posts: 27
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2010
Here's a link (I hope) to a .pdf file. An overview of 10 years of studies. 1783 scientific records on GE crop safety published between 2002 and 2012.
A paragraph of the conclusion reads:
"We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp...-20131.pdf
Posts: 2,372
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Sounds like a statement about trans fat from a few years back, the caveat being "significant ".
but yes, there indeed has been found hazards.
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
Just like all these pharmaceutical prescriptions are released even though they do not have significant side effects, though side effects may include, ass bleeding, not being able to breathe, tumors, dizziness, cancer, and sometiems death. See your physician who gets paid and bribed to prescribe these meds if it is right for you.
Posts: 2,372
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
No significant hazards there. Just think, we trade natural corn and other natural plants for these "non-significant hazards", what a trade off and the benefit is?
ETA: Oh that's right the benefit is that, we are "supporting science", with the ultimate possible support too. By chance are they handing out an equivalent to a Purple Heart for such scientific support?
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
Posts: 2,372
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
"We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."
They have expressed within the conclusions that direct hazards have been connected to GM crops but so far no significant hazards (instant death) have been directly connected to GM crops.
How many years did it take to get the direct connections between trans fat and heart disease? 50 or more years? How many people died from it before the FDA began to take action?
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Meanwhile, the rest of the world gets on with it and leaves us in the dust:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25885756
GM purple tomatoes headed for shops.
Posts: 27
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2010
Let's start with the basics.
"Global food production must face several challenges such as climate change, population growth, and competition for arable lands. Healthy foods have to be produced with reduced environmental impact and with less input from non-renewable resources. Genetically engineered (GE) crops should be an important tool in this scenario." Given, only if scientific research is'nt skewed by politics or extremisim.
Posts: 1,069
Threads: 266
Joined: Sep 2006
Why not just let us just label GMO's, and finish the story?
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/di...=FB&tag=FB
-----------
Support the 'Jack Herer Initiative'NOW!!
-----------
Support the 'Jack Herer Initiative'NOW!!
Posts: 2,372
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Meanwhile:
"In the EU, if a food contains or consists of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or contains ingredients produced from GMOs, this must be indicated on the label. For GM products sold 'loose', information must be displayed immediately next to the food to indicate that it is GM.
On 18 April 2004, new rules for GM labelling came into force in all EU Member States.
The GM Food and Feed Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 lays down rules to cover all GM food and animal feed, regardless of the presence of any GM material in the final product.
This means products such as flour, oils and glucose syrups have to be labelled as GM if they are from a GM source.
Products produced with GM technology (cheese produced with GM enzymes, for example) do not have to be labelled.
Products such as meat, milk and eggs from animals fed on GM animal feed also do not need to be labelled. Details on the labelling rules can be found on the table below.
Any intentional use of GM ingredients at any level must be labelled. However, the Food and Feed Regulation provides for a threshold for the adventitious, or accidental, presence of GM material in non-GM food or feed sources. This threshold is set at 0.9% and only applies to GMOs that have an EU authorisation. The temporary threshold of 0.5% for the presence of GM material not yet authorised, but that had a favourable assessment from an EU scientific committee, expired in April 2007. This means that such unauthorised GM material cannot be present at any level."
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
Posts: 27
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2010
Thank you.
If we know whats in it, we have the choice not to buy it. Cheerios has found theres a market for non-gmo. Some consumers have made a choice and some big companies are listening. This, I've read, is the 30th anniversary of GMO's. We know without a doubt what happens when you consume too much transfats, you eat too much, get fat, have a heart attack and die. I can only assume hydrogenation was developed because of big cities lack of butterfat and lard supplies. Same goes for GMO's, in the sense of the need for good, affordable food. Let's keep doing the science, but in the meantime "Regulate" and not ban an over 30 year old science. Technology is better today, I'm sure you all agree.
