Didn't read that link ^ (I will) but it seemed the MAIN criticism is the small sample size.. the fact that rats were a strain that's genetically very susceptible to cancer growth doesn't mean much imo.. they just lacked statistical power it seems. Up to this point, there's no evidence to suggest GMOs are going to increase tumor risk or elicit other deleterious effects. But again it's still a bit equivocal I guess. The real concerns for GMOs are mainly predicated around new allergens forming and genetic cross-breeding and such. These are real risks, but the severity hasn't been so notable up to this point

False. Someone told me about a study where pigs had all sorts of inflammation due to gmo crops. I have yet to look for the study though. From what I've seen there isn't any reason to avoid gmos.

wasnt this study the one that involved roundup? i remember something of the sort with terrible variable control

im starting to feel that the organic product business is lobbying marginal experts who give flawed (note, not false) statements for some cash. This would make for great irony regarding conspiracy nuts.

Yep yep

to add to your point, the risks related to allergens are also included in conventional (often called organic lol) strain breeding/refining. I do think that caution needs to be taken just to avoid the "we knew it"-kind of backlash in case something ever happened, though

This post was edited by prednam on Jul 16 2014 07:56am

Ya man, nothing wrong with foods that are primarily created in labs w/ chemicals rather than actual food.

the laws of nature dont suddenly change when going from a lab to nature. A lot of the "chemicals" are also found in your "actual food"

You realize they aren't created primarily in labs right? Yes they are genetically modified.. but for the purpose to make them produce more/survive more efficaciously outside in gardens/farms etc..

And most of these ingredients are proven toxic to the human body.

In lab rats, I don't think there have been any human studies...