It has been more than 30 years since GM crops were planted. Is the world really better off?
The Independent has been looking at the future of genetically modified foods as of late. In a series of articles written on the subject, they decided to include among them an email debate between a pro-GMO-er and an anti-GMO advocate. They were hoping that the exchange would help readers have a more open discussion to allow them to make up their own minds on the subject.
Claire Robinson Editor of GMWatch, Research Director of Earth Open Source, and Co-author of GMO Myths and Truths, and Mark Lynas, an author and proponent of GM technology, took up the proposal to ‘duke it out’ verbally over emails that would be moderated by the Independent and then shared with their readers.
While a discussion on any topic can be ongoing, and never have a declared ‘winner’ or ‘loser,’ it was extremely obvious in the debate between Robinson, who was standing on firm ground, and Lynas, who was touting the usually GM propaganda – but of course you should decide by reading the entire transcript yourself. Highlights I thought were worth mentioning include:
Robinson:
“The scientific disagreements on GMO safety are based on hard data. Distrust of GMOs will continue among scientists and the public as long as GMO approvals are granted on the basis of inadequate safety tests sponsored by the manufacturer… To sum up, GM has failed. After 30 years and billions of dollars of investment, it has brought us safety questions, superweeds, and the decline of the monarch butterfly. It’s time to invest resources into areas that will bring us healthy food that is safe for the environment.”
In a single phrase, Robinson points out the insanely obvious. Thirty years and billions of dollars and we still aren’t feeding the world any better – one of the biggest claims that biotech ever made. Instead we have more disease, more pollution, more damaged soil, more polluted water, more contaminated air, less biodiversity, and yep – still hunger – all over the world.
We can feed the entire world right now – we just waste more than half of the food that is already created. What we eat now doesn’t nurture us. It causes disease – of the planet and of our bodies. And we’ve paid for it, with more than a monetary price tag.
Lynas:
“I was on your side 15 years ago, opposing GM crops, when there was little evidence of their safety and the precautionary principle seemed apt. But since then sufficient published data has accumulated (now totaling hundreds of peer-reviewed papers) that there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus on the safety of GM technology.”
I don’t know Lynas personally, nor his assumed deeper affiliations with large biotech companies, but if he hasn’t heard, most of the studies conducted saying GM is safe is paid for by the same people who wouldn’t allow anything derogatory to be printed if it were to come out in the scientific data. University-level studies would lose their grants, and corporate level scientific studies would lose funding as well.
Additionally, there have been no long-term risk assessment studies proving GM food was safe – ever. Show me one long-term study.
Add to that equation the fact that a Monsanto employee recently admitted that the company has an entire department meant to discredit anything that speaks against them. It is an awfully shaky argument to state that “sufficient published data has accumulated” proving GM food is safe.
What about the studies that point to kidney failure? Lowered sperm count? Cancer in rats? Cancer in people? Etc. Etc. You can’t argue with the truth, Mr. Lynas. Why would a company spend millions to curtail science that describes GMOs as ‘quite possibly cancerous’ if that weren’t the truth?
It took a while for Institutions like Harvard to admit that antibiotic overuse could be damaging. The same thing is happening with GMOs. Are we to wait until a scientific researcher that you actually give credence to gives us the truth about GM food? I think not. We’re smarter than that.
Have your own debate about GMO food? Share your ideas below.
Additional Sources:
Photo credit: The Independent
The whole business of GMO food feeding the world is just plain nonscense. It is just a new invention to make more profits for big AG
It has been more than 30 years since GM crops were planted. Is the world really better off?
Let’s see. Well for one, the papaya industry in Hawaii still exists, which has been largely attributed to genetic engineering.
http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/papaya-gmo-success-story.html
Yields for small farmers have improved.
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n4/abs/nbt0410-319.html
Larger farmers have been able to increase no-till practices.
http://www.wssajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1614/WT-08-038.1
Crops with the Bt trait have helped significantly reduce the spraying of insecticides.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html
Sure, it hasn’t all been rainbows and lollipops, but to pretend that GM crops have been an abject failure is simply false. It’s a fantasy perpetrated by propagandists like the author of this article who either have no clue what they’re talking about or are lying.
That would all be great if they were fit for consumption. The problem is that it is UNFIT for consumption, causes broad spectrum health issues and the long term effects, when studied, are ALL BAD! Yield was NEVER an issue in the days before GMO’s, No Till – Jury is still out on that one, looking like more than 15″ of till may be better; BT traits, BT used to be able to wash it off and eating residue was not too bad, now eating it by the pound and having the trait screw up the rest of the plant genome, makes it unfit for consumption. BT now found in blood, fetus, etc. Oh, and all the insects now resistant to BT will make this once decent pesticide worthless (in less than 15 years) So all the lollipops are also bad, want to try again?
Here you go, tell us all about the good things for these issues.
There are numerous problems with genetic engineering that
are often overlooked. There are code scramblers, hitchhikers, chaperones, DNA
rearrangement, horizontal gene transfer, gene position effects, gene silencing,
environmental influences, light switches, hot spots, waking up sleeping
viruses, cancer, genetic pollution via breathing or pollen, synthetic genes,
genetic disposition, complex unpredictable interactions, rearranged codes, gene
stacking, allergens, nutritional problems, antibiotic resistance and human
error.
The failure for GMO’s are Biblical and multi generational. The science that is being done is exposing the problems, one after another. 20 years, hundreds killed by Showa denko’s GMO L-Tryptophan, billions exposed to Monsanto’s frankencrops and chemicals. complete and Abject failures, not only failures, but poisonous failures on a worldwide level.
the GMO advocate who said drinking glyphosate is safe, when given the chance says; “do you think I am stupid”. That’s all we need to know.
deleted
The problem is that it is UNFIT for consumption, causes broad spectrum health issues and the long term effects
If that’s the case, present some examples of peer-reviewed studies to support that claim. Don’t expect me to take your comment seriously otherwise.
Yield was NEVER an issue in the days before GMO’s
That’s a pretty clueless thing to say.
BT used to be able to wash it off and eating residue was not too bad
Incorrect.
Occurrence of natural Bacillus thuringiensis contaminants and residues of Bacillus thuringiensis-based insecticides on fresh fruits and vegetables.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 May;72(5):3435-40.
BT now found in blood, fetus, etc
Bt in fetuses? Source? I bet I know where you got this from and I bet you have read the actual study that claimed to have found this result, much less understand why the study was garbage. But let’s see if you can even present a source? Then I’ll happily educate you.
There are code scramblers, hitchhikers, chaperones, DNA rearrangement, horizontal gene transfer, gene position effects, gene silencing, environmental influences, light switches, hot spots, waking up sleeping viruses, cancer, genetic pollution via breathing or pollen, synthetic genes, genetic disposition, complex unpredictable interactions, rearranged codes, gene stacking, allergens, nutritional problems, antibiotic resistance and human
error.
Where did you get this nonsense from? What is a “code scrambler”? What do chaperones have to do with any of this? Do you even know what a molecular chaperone is? What do “light switches” have to do with this? You sound like someone who spent 15 minutes on Google and now think you’re an expert. Well, you’re not.
I liken G E to people messing with the atom…i.e. nuclear weapons, nuclear power…………and what is the result of this atomic mess? Disaster for us all. That’s what…..The same is on our door step as a result of people messing with Genetic Engineering and chemical’s applied to our soils, plants, forests. We have a disaster! I don’t know how to be much clearer………..YOU see, people did not make the earth, all life and it’s mysterious manifestations all of which are required for you and myself to exist………Since we did not make it, and it ain’t broke, we can’t add to the basic building blocks( for more personal brilliance) of which you and I are made of…………Need a clearer picture? I can get very specific….you are the who is out in left field with out a fielders glove…….
I don’t see anything that rises to the level of evidence in your comment. I’m not out in left field. I’m right in the dugout. I am doing research involving GM plants. I am aware of how genetic engineering could be hazardous, but that’s not nearly the same thing as saying commercial GMOs are inherently dangerous. I’m open minded though. Show the evidence and convince me.
here is the problem with theoretical stuff (science) when it’s let loose and it will be. Personally I love science. Math. physics. social aspects also….First of all. There is no need for life on earth to be “redesigned”…..The intricacy of all, one to the other (life forms), are vastly more difficult to understand as a whole, than any person who has ever lived to demonstrate that understanding……..You and I can not command one blade of grass to grow. Not one! When or if, we were to say to a fertile area of earth…..I command you, grass….grow right there! Nothing happens. Absolutely nothing…..yet that grass does grow via means that passes all understanding. My comment is in respect to and for the beauty THAT IS. I am not a religious preacher or pretender…..Look closely at the so called Atomic Energy business…..Humanity has yet to face the outcome of that disaster….the can has been kicked down the road. Why? Well Einstein said it was a damn fool way to boil water…and he is spot on….
If my reference to the blade of grass is unsettling or you would want…..do answer back and include in you thoughts, why Humans…find it difficult to safe guard their own survival………??
and tell you something else…I am a combat vet out of Nam, in country 1969 via us army, draftee and was right in the thrust of agent orange, and the rest of our “brilliant political and military minds” doings…………..the only difference between this analogy and a mad scientist is the weapon……………I ask you get a damn grip. You could do some positive education with your background………
There is no need for life on earth to be “redesigned”.
Practically everything we eat has been “redesigned”. There is no wild broccoli, no wild bananas, and no wild Holsteins. Humans have been “redesign” nature from beginning of agriculture. This idea that life is some how ‘naturally ideal’ is a myth born from human perception. It’s not reality.
You and I can not command one blade of grass to grow.
Sure you can. You just need to understand the ‘language’ and what ‘words’ to use. In this case, that language is plant science and the words are regulatory growth hormones. I could easily promote or inhibit the growth of grass in the lab or my backyard by applying hormones.
You could do some positive education with your background…
Thank you for the sentiment. And in fact, that’s exactly what I’m trying to do here.
This is the same BS that tries to make GMO appear natural. yes, many plants have been improved by selective or cross breeding but GMO is altogether completely different.
Natural genetic modification is not something that happens occasionally, it is constant and pervasive throughout the life of the organism within thousands of interconnecting genetic molecules throughout the cell and genome at any time. This is why GMO technology has failed to deliver any
worthwhile complex traits and single traits are highly unstable. Artificial genetic modification depends on disrupting the natural process in an
interfering and hazardous manner that results in uncontrollable, unpredictable hazards; scrambled genomes, dangerous proteins and metabolites. The genetic change is reductionist without
regard to the entire organism using stressful methodology; gene guns, electric shock, invasive bacterium and aggressive virus promoters that destabilize genomes and multiply hazards, resulting in horizontal transfer, instability and
yield drag.
The natural process is precise and interdependent on the appropriate context and results in no adverse interference. Any changes are accurately negotiated by the organism as a whole with very low cellular random mutation or undesirable effects.
GMO’s are not natural, they combine genes from different species, which is IMPOSSIBLE by natural means. Although you can convince me that spraying enough roundup on plants can activate some roundup gene, but not from a bacterium, probably another route.
The People have woken up, by discussing this in the blogosphere and on state ballots people are researching this further for themselves and finding the facts, the problems and the lies. So I hope to spark that alone and you are a great help in pushing more to do their own due dilligence. That’s why Monsanto, Mcdonalds, coke and other big AG companies are losing sales and the people are finally voting with their pocketbook and refusing to put garbage into their bodies. soon the health of the masses will start improving and GMO’s will be put into the dustbin of history.
This is why GMO technology has failed to deliver any worthwhile complex traits and single traits are highly unstable.
That’s a highly subjective statement and the second part is simply false. A trait is stable when it can be inherited by subsequent generations.
Listen, unless you start providing sources for your claims, I’m just going to ignore you. You clearly do not have a background in this field and so I am not willing to accept your claims without credible sources being presented.
The site GMOevidence dot com is a good place for you to start. Please tell everyone why there is antibiotic resistance built into GMO technology.
No it isn’t. I’ve been there. Google scholar is where you want to go.
Antibiotic resistance is used for a selection method during the generation of transgenic plants. This is actually old technology. New methods allow for antibiotic resistant genes to be removed before commercialization. It’s called genome editing. Google that term and you can learn more.
That’s great that you can talk on this level and make it easy to understand. So we agree that the old technology created products that had antibiotic resistance and that they sold this into our food system making us all their guinea pigs.
the next question/observation is on gene position effects which can cause gene silencing (accidentally turning off native genes). How can you prevent this and tell how this will be affected in the future? How many generations need to be tested to determine how safe this will be. Because animal studies show that sterilization can occur after 2-3 generations with the current roundup ready products, how can we be sure this won’t happen again?
Antibiotic resistant genes are naturally occurring in some types of soil bacteria. It’s entirely possible for you to be exposed to antibiotic resistant genes even if you ever came in contact with any GM plants. But that being said, I do think it’s important to remove resistant genes prior to commercialization. We’re in agreement on this issue, but maybe not on the degree of risk posed.
And this probably ended up creating antibiotic resistant gut bacteria
I wouldn’t say that without evidence to support it. Possible? Maybe. Probable? Hard to say.
the next question/observation is on gene position effects which can cause gene silencing (accidentally turning off native genes)
As in that paper you linked by the Belgian group, the DNA border regions next to the insert can be sequenced. This allows determination of the location of the insert and whether any native gene is interrupted. When making transgenics, multiple independent transformed lines are screened. If one line shows an interruption of a native plant gene, another line can be selected.
Because animal studies show that sterilization can occur after 2-3 generations with the current roundup ready products
What studies? I need to see this evidence before I will accept that claim.
Mae-Wan Ho and others, “CaMV 35s promoter fragmentation hotspot confirmed,and it is active in animals,” Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, v. 13,2000
Here is another issue showing problems with the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter. can you explain why this is used, and what the dangers are of using this approach? Have you used this approach? this proves that the genes are getting transferred from plant to animal!
I’ll get back to you about this. Right now it’s Friday afternoon and sunny. Beer is waiting for me.
This looks like a fake journal. I can’t even find an impact factor at all. And it looks like maybe half of an actual abstract, with no data at all. Everything I have read my Mae-wan Ho has been a blog entry at i-sis, and shows her to be a flaming idiot.
Are there problems or issues with the 35S promoter? Maybe, do you have any data that indicates that this is the case? There is absolutely no evidence that genes are transferred from plant to animal.
everyone can see you are a corporate troll. paid to try and sway public opinion. the tell tale sign is that you don;t admit to the past failures of GMO science. when you admit to the past failures we will start to have a conversation, otherwise I will just keep pasting my personal reviews here to push others to do their own studies. A day or two studying this is all anyone really needs to see for themselves that Monsanto and GMO science is Tobacco science.
Ad hominem attacks are not rational arguments. I’m happy to talk science, but I’ll ignore your more petty comments (like this one) in the future.
you’re in the dugout?????
Meh. I dunno. I was trying to stick with the baseball analogy.
according to you we should wait a couple of generations to see how many people will be sterilized or hurt or killed by glyphosate or GMO foods or both before you are convinced. But we already have a few multi generational feeding studies on rats, mice and guinea pigs that show this to be the case (sterilized by the second and third generation), so if you are a real scientist, the precautionary principle should guide your morals.
Then only human study clearly showed that the GMO was getting past the stomach intact, this the gene transfer mechanism is certainly possible. Minsanto said it was impossible! imagine that.
GMO’s have not lived up to ANY of their promises, they have only caused unintended consequences. once unleashed they cannot be called back, they continue to contaminate the planet infinitum as they are living and growing things that have pollen and produce seeds.
Anyone can look these studies up for yourselves. I have more than 100 pages of boiled down book reviews, paper reviews and others if you want me to keep going. Diving into genetic chaperones and gene gun usage with the associated antibiotic resistance is probably more than this blog can handle. But I am willing to discuss if this will help some people to understand the MAJOR technical issues associated with GMO that cannot be overcome.
Ask the families of the people killed and maimed by Showa denko’s genetic experiment then and explain how they did such good science. and that was doubling up on an already present gene. How about Monsanto unable to determine for a decade the 600 contaminating genes in their roundup ready soy “experiment”. all anyone has to do is go to GMO evidence for a start, plenty of papers and evidence. How can anyone justify unleashing these unintended consequence items on the population without basic studies. How come all the 3rd party feeding studies that last longer than 120 days show huge health issues? Serralini study alone is all that is needed to refute everything Monsanto has ever published as he copied a Monsanto Study on purpose to show how poor their study was.
If a single gene can change 20% of the entire genome with countless permutations and combinations, how can you guarantee any result.
which one are you from;
Fleishman Hillard, Ogilvy & Mather, Ketchum, JayneThompson & Associates and White House Writers Group?
Artificial Genetic Issues, well known failures:
When a tobacco plant was engineered to produce a single acid, another toxic compound was also created that was not normally found in
tobacco. Monsanto engineered two types of cotton plants, one to produce Bt insecticide and the other to withstand glyphosate herbicide. The first year they were planted, thousands of acres malfunctioned, cotton balls fell on the ground, plants died when sprayed with glyphosate, the insecticide failed, many seeds did not germinate, had lower yield or other problems. A genetically modified yeast to increase fermentation also increased a toxin by 40-200 times after inserting copies of the yeast’s own gene, not even a foreign gene. Genetic engineering is fraught with unknowns as changing a single gene can switch on or off countless other genes, and the intended outcome typically results in a poisonous product. This result has already hurt or killed people when Showa Denko engineered a bacterium to produce more L-Tryptophan and it
increased the toxic and allergenic components.
how can you claim you know more today? You cannot ever resolve that the genome is constantly changing to its environment and that there are permutations and combinations that you can never plan for that will result in unintended consequences. nothing claimed by Monsanto has come true, in fact all claims have been proven false, numerous failures on a large scale so much so that glyphosate, which was supposed to be “biodegradable’ is now showing up everywhere so much so that the EPA has to raise their allowable levels.
The new book out on GMO’s shows how the company and govt colluded. Guess Ill have to wait to get my copy so I can write a review and expose more of the Monsanto madness.
How about Monsanto unable to determine for a decade the 600 contaminating genes in their roundup ready soy “experiment”.
Source? I have no idea what you’re talking about and I’m not inclined to blindly believe anything you’re saying as you don’t strike me as (and I mean no offense, just stating a fact) being well informed about this subject.
Serralini study alone
Have you read that study? I have. It’s garbage. For example, in that study male rats drinking water laced with RoundUp lived longer than rats drinking clean water. Does that make sense to you? Of course not. The study is garbage. Don’t believe me? Look for yourself.
If a single gene can change 20% of the entire genome with countless permutations and combinations
Where did you hear this? It sounds like absolute nonsense to me or you didn’t understand what you were hearing. I have a PhD in biochemistry and have actually done genetic engineering. This statement doesn’t sound factual. But, I could be wrong. Show me a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating this to be factual.
which one are you from; Fleishman Hillard, Ogilvy & Mather, Ketchum, JayneThompson & Associates and White House Writers Group?
None. I work at a major Canadian university.
When a tobacco plant was engineered to produce a single acid, another toxic compound was also created that was not normally found in tobacco.
Source? Where did you read this? Is this from a peer-reviewed study?
You need to spend more time learning the basic fundamentals of molecular biology before trying to critic this issue.
So if we agree that the serrallini sudy was not complete or perfect, then we also have to conclude that the monsanto study that he copied (serralini also used more individuals per group and took the study out more than 1 year, while monsanto only did 90 days) is far inferior and was probably designed to find nothing.
No, that’s a non-sequitur. Each study must be evaluated individually. I’ll get back to you about the Hammond et al study (think that’s the one) later when I have more time.
I disagree, he followed perfect science, if he copied the study, used the same EXACT rat type, more individuals per group, and longer feeding times. It is perfect science, actually repeating a past study to verify the results! This is done in many other science areas, I assure you as I have worked in a couple of the best. But then he took it even farther to answer even more questions.
Actually this was planned because Serallini knew he would be attacked, but attacking his study actually attacks the Monsanto Study which is a far inferior study. So you have fallen into the same trap as intended.
All due respect, what experience do you have performing scientific research? On what basis are you qualified to judge the merits of experimental design?
I suspect you don’t actually have much (if any) experience based on the errors present in your comment. Since you haven’t specifically pointed out which Monsanto study you’re referring to, I will assume that it is this one:
Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn
Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 44, Issue 7, July 2006, Pages 1092–1099
It seems you haven’t even read these studies as you claimed that Seralini used more animals per group. He didn’t. He used half as many. This gives his study far less statistical strength than the Monsanto study.
Also, for a study you think is “perfect”, you don’t seem to know anything about the results. For example, males rats drinking water laced with RoundUp lived longer than rats male drinking clean water. Does that sound like a “perfect” result? Of course not. It’s a sign that the design of the experiment was faulty.
You’d be much better off acknowledging the limitations of you familiarity with this field and asking questions rather than acting overly confident and ultimately being proven completely wrong.
team of Belgian scientists published their discovery that adjacent to one of those rogue inserted gene fragments was a sequence of DNA-
534 bases-that was not part of the Roundup gene and was not natural soybean DNA either.
P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M. DeLoose,
“Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert,” European Food Research
and Technology, vol. 213,2001, pp. 107-1 12
And this was 8-10 years after its introduction into our food system. How can something like this be defended against. How can you say that this technology is precise, how can this be proven safe in the future?
You’re interpretation of that study is not entirely accurate. Yes, the researchers found a small segment of unexpected sequence adjacent to the inserted DNA. A portion of this segment was from the inserted DNA itself (the EPSPS gene). The authors indicated that remaining portion was likely formed by rearrangement of the soybean DNA. This rearrangement only occurred at the terminator end, not the promoter end of the insert (the terminator and promoter are component of the gene expression cassette. I don’t have time to explain these features in detail. You can find more information on Wikipedia about these features). This may be a feature of the type of terminator used or of the insertion method.
Either way, I don’t feel that this finding is particularly troubling. It does point out that we should screen these regions in the future, but the potential risk posed is exceedingly low to the point of being non-existent. This is because this rearrangement occurred downstream of the terminator, meaning it won’t be expressed by the action of the promoter in the insert. Sorry for the technical language. Basically, think of the promoter as the sequence that initiates and drives the expression of a DNA sequence (e.g. a gene) and the terminator tells the cellular machinery where the gene ends. The gene is sandwiched in between the promoter and the terminator. Thus, sequences that fall on the outside of either of these features don’t get expressed.
super, nice answer.
But you dismiss the error as inconsequential, yet there are still issues : http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-11/features/chi-food-policy-gm-corn-and-soy-feed-cause-health-problems-in-hogs-says-study-20130611_1_gm-crops-pigs-health-problems
so I would not be inclined to discount something in genetics because it may have affected numerous other areas of the genome or the allergenic profile. the only way to be sure is thorough testing and feeding studies. It may also be natural mutation as a result of the GM process or not, but without the constant testing and quality control we can only guess what actually happened and why. But the evidence shows that we cannot count on the companies and we are a bunch of guinea pigs in this massive experiment. worst of all, without labels we do not have informed consent, the most basic of human rights.
Looks like I have to retract my number, lets make it only 500 base pairs instead. IN any case, Monsanto did not even know about this and it was found a decade after release! What else do they not know?
So you are in Canada and should know of the debacle where Monsanto offered to payoff the govt lab to approve RBsT? and the researchers came forward exposing them?
Everything I am quoting is from a textbook and cited. It is before the internet so many are unavailable, but I will provide some of the references.
Tobacco Mistake: A.S. Reddy and T.L. Thomas, “Modification of plant lipid composition: Expression
of a cyanobacterial D6-desaturase gene in transgenic plants,” Nature BioTechnology,
vol. 14,1996, pp. 639642
What is it about this paper that you want to talk about?
You missed the point: BT was NEVER inside the plant cells, It was on the surface and consumed in minute amounts. Not consumed by the pound as found in every GMO plant cell! So trying to make this look Natural is failing.
Not consumed by the pound
I highly doubt anyone is consuming Bt endotoxin by the “pound”. Stop being hyperbolic. It makes it exceedingly easy to dismissing you.
For example, Cry1ab (Bt endotoxin) concentration in MON810 grain were measured at about 0.8 ug/g. That means to consume 1 pound of Cry1ab a person would need to eat 545,000 kilograms of MON810 grain.
Cry1Ab toxin production of MON 810 transgenic maize
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5/full
Besides, even at very high doses of 5 g/kg, no adverse reactions were seen in mice.
Safety assessment of Cry1Ab/Ac fusion protein
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691509001392
People can see how science has been used, corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations to serve their own ends. It is because they regard these large corporations as largely unaccountable and their activities and products not properly regulated by governments.
That’s why so many doubt Monsanto Tobacco science – or more precisely the science corporations fund and promote to support their interests.
So what was that about the peer reviewed science thing? we all know everything published under a Monsanto rubric will show it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, no problems, everything is fine here. while farmers turn their farmland into chemical wasteland that produces food that is devoid of nutrition, namely the magnesium, manganese and others that Glyphosate chelates. Mass is still conserved.
What pisses me off the most is that Monsanto decided that their profits are worth more than your health and that they would push their products on the population and treat us all like guinea pigs while they profit off our misery. This is against every moral law in existence, oh I forgot, Monsanto is an amoral company!
do your own diligence, study up on GMO tobacco science, see how they are making guinea pigs out of your family and kids and causing harm to everything they touch with their glyphosate and unknown GMO science. they know the studies and have done them internally and they hide the data! Get pissed and do something by avoiding the companies that use their products so the companies will eliminate them from their ingredients, starve the monsanto beast. pass laws in your state that abolish their usage, we are already turning this abomination around as the people wake up to the corporate culture of death and profits at all cost.