19 Years of Feeding Animals GMO Shows No Harm

[True Earthling]

Since 1996 90-95% of animal feed in the U.S. has been GMO. A new study to be published October 1 in the Journal of Animal Science looked at 19 yrs of data representing over 2,000 studies, 100 billion feed animals and trillions of meals consumed by feed animals..by common sense alone, if GMO feed were causing unusual problems among livestock, farmers would have noticed. Sick animals would be evident on farms around the world. Yet there are no anecdotal reports of mass health problems. The authors also found no evidence to suggest any health affect on humans who eat those animals. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GMO-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of the diet that are digested, there are no detectable or reliably quantifiable traces of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GMO feed.

I suspect the science backing anti-GMO is as bogus as the science supporting anti-vax. If someone can show me a scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal that shows health issues caused by GMO's in humans or animals, I would like to see it.

From the abstract...
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/early/2014/08/27/jas.2014-8124

Data on livestock productivity and health were collated from publicly available sources from 1983, before the introduction of GE (Genetically Engineered) crops in 1996, and subsequently through 2011, a period with high levels of predominately GE animal feed. These field data sets representing over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of the diet that are digested, there are no detectable or reliably quantifiable traces of GMO components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE feed.

From the Neurologica Blog...

19 Years of Feeding Animals GMO Shows No Harm
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/

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. http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=52&autotry=true&ULnotkn=true

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.

With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue.

Those claims are simply not true. Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, but the magnitude of the research has never been evaluated or documented.

Still the claim that GMOs are ‘understudied’—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted at the beginning of this article—has become a staple of anti-GMO critics, especially activist journalists. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.

[dhill926]

1. Well, the animals are slaughtered...

And don't live out their life spans. Might that have something to do with this?

[TheBlackAdder]

26. Not only are they slaughtered, but the meat industry would hide/process defective livestock. nt

[Botany]

2. "They" have also showed that organically raised fruits and vegetables were the same as ....

... those grown by traditional methods too. A carrot is a carrot.* But some people
will see this study as flawed and run by Agri-Biz.


* however organic production methods are better for the environment and
pesticide and fertilizer residues can be a problem too.

[jazzimov]

3. Then there is no reason not to label

GMO's and let the people decide.

[FBaggins]

14. Sorry. That doesn't make sense.

If there were some indication that there could be a reasonable concern... then it would make sense to label them.

If your statement were correct, then there would be no reason not to require labeling for every aspect of food production (Harvested on the Sabbath... "contains 'girly' colors"... "comes from countries where people don't share your religion"... "farmed by other-colored people"... etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.

If people want to decide not to consume GMO crops... then they already have the labeling they need. Buy organic.

[closeupready]

21. Pork genes are not kosher, according to some. Thus, labels DO

make very much sense.

[FBaggins]

29. How many "not kosher!" labels do you remember seeing?

Instead, we label foods that are certified kosher.

[upaloopa]

27. Yes it makes sense.

People should be able to chose for themselves and not have Monsanto chose for them.

[FBaggins]

28. That's two different arguments

"People should be able to chose for themselves", while not persuasive in a pursuit of a legal requirement for labeling, at least makes sense as an argument. "There is no evidence of potential harm, therefore labeling shouldn't be a problem" does not.

As I pointed out. If a lack of evidence of harm was a justification and, obviously, actual evidence of harm is a justification... then there is no scenario where labeling laws should not be put in place - regardless of how ridiculous the requested requirement is.

[pnwmom]

4. And from scientists across the world, where GMO's are more regulated, a differing perspective.

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety

As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),[1] we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety[2] [3] [4] and that the debate on this topic is “over”.[5]

We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

Science and society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as current knowledge is always open to well-founded challenge and disagreement. We endorse the need for further independent scientific inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM proponents to do the same.

Some of our objections to the claim of scientific consensus are listed below.

SNIP

LIST OF SCIENTISTS WHO SIGNED THIS, WITH ACADEMIC AFFILIATIONS:

http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/signatories_as_of_131210_lv.pdf

[HuckleB]

45. Those are not real scientists, for the most part.

And they are a very small percentage of the scientists around the world, no matter how you look at it. You have a lot to answer for with posts like this in your history.

[marions ghost]

5. Intelligent people are skeptical of GMOs

...the unaware don't care.

Whenever there is this much effort to convince people that GMO's are safe based on 90-day studies in rats you can be sure that the final phase of the study is US.

So much secrecy, so much effort to thwart labeling, so much propaganda like you are putting out talking about "activist journalists." (THANK YOU journalists!)....all this is indicative of a well-funded push back.

Anyway--beyond the claims for safety--who wants to support Monsanto and the other big agra players? They stink as responsible businesses.

I'm sticking with the intellegentsia on this. Whole Foods is going GMO free by 2018, and other producers and similar stores will go that way also. What does that tell you? A lot of their customers don't want to eat it, based on their understanding of science--and that includes psychology and political science.

GMOs

[ohnoyoudidnt]

6. Consuming GMOs might be safe.

However, if one or a few corporations end up controlling the patents for all the GMOs used to feed the world, that could be a very big problem for the rest of us.

[jwirr]

32. And that is the real problem. If I am not wrong GMO crops cross over into neighboring crops so that

we lose the other genetic strains. Eventually we will not be able to grow food that does not come from these corporate controlled GMO crops. Hasn't this happened in smaller countries already?

[dipsydoodle]

7. Having what bearing if any on human consumption ?

I probably consume by accident despite our stringent EU rules.

[TheNutcracker]

8. I guess they are not including the mice fed GMO's?

Lookie here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=mice+with+tumors+fed+GMO's&biw=1024&bih=726&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_jsiVJD0IZLCsATqhYGwBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

and...
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/alert-gmo-corn-and-roundup-caused-cancer-and-killed-rats

[Nye Bevan]

11. Comprehensively debunked, and the journal it was published in retracted it:

The conclusions that Séralini drew from the experiments were widely criticized, as was the design of the experiments.[2][3] Scientists claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the experimental design – the small sample size together with the length of the study together with the known high incidence of tumors in the species of rats used, namely Sprague-Dawley rats. The paper was also refuted by food standards agencies.[4] Other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered no health issues.[3][4] The release of the book and movie in conjunction with the scientific paper, and the requirement that journalists sign a confidentiality agreement, were also criticized and negatively peer reviewed.[2]

In November 2013, Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal that published the 2012 paper, announced that it was retracting the paper, after the authors refused to withdraw it.[5] The article was republished in June 2014 in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, without further peer-review.

.....

Many national food safety and regulatory agencies reviewed the paper and condemned it. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment VP Reiner Wittkowski said in a statement, ""The study shows both shortcomings in study design and in the presentation of the collected data. This means that the conclusions drawn by the authors are not supported by the available data."[45] A joint report by three Canadian regulatory agencies also "identified significant shortcomings in the study design, implementation and reporting."[46] Similar conclusions were reached by the French HCB[30] and the National Agency for Food Safety,[47] the Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie,[48] the Technical University of Denmark,[49] Food Standards Australia New Zealand,[50] the Brazilian National Technical Commission on Biosafety,[51] and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).[40] The conclusions of the EFSA evaluation were:

The study as reported by Séralini et al. was found to be inadequately designed, analysed and reported...The study as described by Séralini et al. does not allow giving weight to their results and conclusions as published. Conclusions cannot be drawn on the difference in tumour incidence between treatment groups on the basis of the design, the analysis and the results as reported. Taking into consideration Member States’ assessments and the authors’ answer to critics, EFSA finds that the study as reported by Séralini et al. is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessments.[40]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

[gyroscope]

19. And it was retracted shortly after the journal hired a former Monsanto employee

to be their new associate editor.

Coincidence? Yeah right.


Journal Retracts GMO Study After Hiring Former Monsanto Employee

[SidDithers]

42. Seralini. LOL...nt

Sid

[Generic Other]

9. Eating liver is safe too

I don't choose to do it. Simple as that. GMO supporters have no right to tell me what to eat. It does you no harm whatsoever if I refuse to eat what I believe to be tainted food.

[Mariana]

12. Exactly. This is NOT like the anti-vaccine bullshit

and it's ridiculous for GMO supporters to make that comparison. Refusing to vaccinate endangers both the individuals who don't get the vaccines and the people around them. Choosing not to buy and eat GMO food - for any reason or no reason at all - doesn't endanger anyone.

[True Earthling]

38. It's not ridiculous to equate the science behind anti-GMO with anti-vax science.

I haven't seen any credible research that shows GMO's causing mutations, cancer or disease. Pesticides are another matter however.

There are some in the anti-GMO movement who profess an extreme ideology that advocates banning GMO's and feeding the world with small organic farms using no fertilizer.. this is would result in millions of deaths due to starvation.

I suspect the majority of those who are anti-GMO are not that extreme however I have not seen any polls to indicate one way or the other whether that is the goal.

[Mariana]

39. I think most anti-GMO people in the US want labeling

so they can choose whether to buy those products. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[True Earthling]

40. Perhaps it would make more sense to label non-GMO products

which most organic suppliers do anyway. I was going to agree with you about labeling until I read this editorial. It makes some valid points IMO...

Voters should oppose mandatory-labeling measure: Editorial endorsement
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/08/voters_should_oppose_mandatory.html#incart_most-comments

Proponents of mandatory labeling have tried to sell their skewed notion of consumer choice to voters in California and Washington in recent years without success. Undeterred, they're serving up a warmed-over version to Oregonians in the form of Measure 92, which voters who truly value transparency and consumer choice will reject.

The ostensible reason for such labeling is to better inform people about what they're buying. In the most literal sense, labeling would do just that. Oregonians who didn't know already that much of what they buy at the supermarket has been produced with the help of genetic engineering would be set straight pronto. Through the proliferation of scarlet-letter labels, they'd discover that roughly 70 percent of processed foods found on store shelves have GE pedigrees, as the Washington State Academy of Sciences noted in a 2013 report (more about that later). Behind this statistic is the popularity of corn and soybean varieties engineered to tolerate a commonly used herbicide and – in the case of corn – to resist pests.

The measure would require packages containing targeted foods to include one of the following descriptions "clearly and conspicuously": "genetically engineered," "produced with genetic engineering" or "partially produced with genetic engineering." Bins and shelves containing unpackaged goods would have to be labeled accordingly, too.

How can the appearance of labels containing factual information misinform consumers, you ask? The answer begins with the Food and Drug Administration, the federal government's food-safety cop, which has declined to mandate GE labels for the simple reason that there's no nutritionally valid reason to do so. Measure 92 would require what federal regulators, relying upon science, have denied: a label whose mere presence suggests that the food within differs in some nutritionally significant way from other foods. In other words, it will look like a warning, and consumers who have neither the time nor the inclination to follow debates like this one may act accordingly – which ultimately is what supporters of Measure 92 would like.

Protecting less-informed consumers from misleading labels would alone justify a "no" vote on Measure 92. But mandatory labeling almost certainly will raises food costs as well, which will have a disproportionate effect upon those with the least money to spend. Supporters of the measure, naturally, dismiss the pocketbook argument, but in this they're at odds with the 2013 white paper by the Washington State Academy of Sciences, a panel created by the state Legislature to provide unbiased analysis on pressing and substantive issues. The issue at the time was Initiative 522, a mandatory labeling measure defeated that fall by a narrow margin.

The panel determined that mandatory labeling would raise various costs for businesses, including those relating to the segregation of products along the supply chain. This, in turn, would lead to higher prices, which "would make consumers worse off, especially low-income consumers." Though it's impossible to predict how much costs would rise as a result of Oregon's initiative, it would be naïve to assume that they wouldn't go up at all. And poor Oregonians, despite supporters' rhetoric about "personal freedom and individual choice," would have little choice but to pay.

Choice, in fact, is one reason to support the status quo, which provides organic and voluntarily labeled non-GE products for anyone who cares to buy them, usually at a higher price. The poor are protected, meanwhile, because, as the Washington report notes, "Volunteer labeling concentrates the costs on the target group able and willing to pay more for GMO-free products" while "mandatory labeling imposes costs on everyone and not just those that desire GMO-free goods."

Oregonians may or may not like genetically engineered food products and the big companies that provide them, but such antipathy is a lousy reason to approve a measure that will mislead many consumers and place a disproportionate financial burden on those least able to carry it.

[MrMickeysMom]

10. "No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products...

...derived from GE-"

Just how is the "nutritional profile" expressed, I wonder?

[Generic Other]

13. Any studies on the cumulative effect of GMOs

inhumane, unsanitary and morally reprehensible factory farm practices, downer cows and mad cow disease, feed contaminated with corn that contains polymers (not intended for consumption)...it is not just the one poison. We are asked to pick our poison.

[MrMickeysMom]

15. That's a wise statement, GO...

I chose this year to limit my consumption to poultry, and be specific as to what I'd buy. I'll answer to this as a consumer, which is powerful, if we all do it.

Plus, I know it's healthier to eat at the bottom of the food chain, but damn it, we have to be selective about that, too.

[gyroscope]

16. Conflict of interest much?

Check out the author of the report in the first link which is listed as:

Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis

UC of course is a very prestigious institution, but their biotech research is also heavily funded by industry giants such as DuPont, Monsanto, and Bayer.



BiIOTECH INDUSTRY FUNDS BUMPER CROP OF UC DAVIS RESEARCH

"But there was one fact the “Biotech Knowledge Center” Web site failed to mention:
Monsanto paid for the UC Davis research.

Following a pattern set by farm chemical companies in the 1960s, the biotechnology industry is mining public agricultural colleges such as UC Davis for scientific research, confidential business advice and academic support for its technology.

You name it, and biotechnology companies help pay for it at UC Davis: laboratory studies, scholarships, post.doctoral students' salaries, professors' travel expenses, even the campus utility bill. Some professors earn extra money, up to $2,000 a month, consulting for such companies on the side.

-------------

Sad. Apparently even the most reputable schools and universities are not immune to being corrupted by industry.

[laundry_queen]

20. +1 nt

[closeupready]

22. There we go, folks.

[marions ghost]

24. +++

uh.............................................yeah thx

[justiceischeap]

17. Yes, because we all know humans and animals have the same physiology

And so, if it doesn't harm a cow, it won't harm humans.

Of course, that isn't the point anyway, some people don't want to eat GMO foods and that should be their choice.

[marions ghost]

25. Watch out for your armpits as well

even the "natural" deodorants and cosmetics contain a new corn product. Is it GMO free? This Dupont product Zemea Mays (Propanediol) is in everything.

-----------------
"Zemea Propanediol"--a humectant product (introduced 2008) from Dupont Monsanto from corn that is now being used in so many many cosmetics. To replace propylene glycol from petroleum (which was even used in all your "natural" cosmetics & body products).

Hot debate about GMOs in Zemea:

http://organatural.typepad.com/organatural_the_blog/2010/09/id-of-the-most-controversial-ingredient-in-natural-and-organic-beauty-products.html

1- "because Propanediol is from corn it is claimed to be natural. Chemically speaking this molecule is not natural and human technology manipulated bacteria and genetically modified corn to make a synthetic structure."

2- "because propanediol is from a renewable source it is claimed to be sustainable. How can an ingredient made from genetically modified corn be sustainable? The concept behind sustainability is to work with nature without depleting and respecting it. GMO is a dangerous game and in my opinion it does not respect nature because it can cause a lot of environmental damage. It is a time bomb."

3- "because Ecocert and NPA approve propanediol you can find natural and organic products on the market with a "natural" propylene glycol without consumers realising they are actually applying a Proplylene Glycol on their skin."

Implications (from the link):

1- "Consumers are confused.

2- Can consumers simply rely on organic certifications for their peace of mind?

3- What is natural?

4- how did Zemea INCI name come about? Was it intended to mislead the consumers?"

"I am a chemist and I know propanediol is from GMO and so on therefore I can avoid it. But what about the most of the people who want to use truly natural beauty products and who care about the planet? Do they know propanediol is propylene glycol and do they know it is GMO? Do they have a real choice?"

http://organatural.typepad.com/organatural_the_blog/2010/09/id-of-the-most-controversial-ingredient-in-natural-and-organic-beauty-products.html

[True Earthling]

30. Cows and humans are 80% similar when comparing DNA...

which is closer to humans than mice or rats which are commonly used in biotech research...

Similarities between cow and human DNA

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Food-and-Agriculture/Bovine-genome-decoded/Similarities-between-cow-and-human-DNA.aspx

One of the big surprises from the research was the discovery that cattle have far more in common genetically with humans than do mice or rats.

This suggests that cattle may make better subjects for studying human health.

Scientists estimate that the cattle genome contains approximately 22 000 genes, 80 per cent of which are shared with human beings.
A Hereford cow, known as L1 Dominette 01449 has provided scientists with the first genetic blueprint for cattle. Using DNA samples from Dominette, scientists have analysed the cow’s complete set of DNA sequences – its genome.

A Hereford cow, known as L1 Dominette 01449 has provided scientists with the first genetic blueprint for cattle.
'Cow and human proteins have more in common than mouse and human proteins, yet it is the mouse that is often used in medical research as a model for human disease conditions,' said Dr Tellam.

In addition to helping medical researchers gain insight into the human genome and develop improved ways of treating and preventing disease, the bovine genome sequence will serve as a tool for agricultural researchers working to improve health and disease management of cattle and increase the nutritional value of beef and dairy products.

Like humans and other mammals, the chromosomes of cattle contain segmental duplications, which are large, almost identical copies of DNA present in at least two locations in a genome.

[justiceischeap]

33. Does that make them reliable test subjects?

For example, I had a great-grandfather that smoked until his death... no cancer ever yet my grandfather died from cancer. My point being, we still don't know why some humans react the way we do to some diseases (HIV is a great example of this), what gets one human doesn't necessarily affect another, so how reliable would testing on a mammal that only shares 80% of our DNA going to relay to how some humans react to GMO foods?

[MohRokTah]

18. Any studies about other effects?

Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

How about the effect of genetically altered corn being resistant to herbicides resulting in wild weeds developing the same trait?

What about the effects of Bt altered crops and the effecr on soil insect pests potentially gaining a super resistance to naturally occurring Bt?

Any studies on the ecological impact of genetically engineered salmon getting released into the wild regardless of the promises that it will never happen?

What about the effects of just a two or three corporations controlling 90-95% of global food production?

[marions ghost]

23. Yeah

these very relevant unanswered questions remain...thanks for listing them.

[gyroscope]

34. The GMO herbicide is designed to kill anything

that isn't specifically engineered to resist it.

Wind, rivers and rain then spreads and disperses these GMO chemical for miles around. What are the unintended consequences for the surrounding environment and the effects on natural plant and animal life? It cannot be good.

Every year thousands of plant and animal species are going extinct. How much are these franken-chemicals contributing to these unprecedented extinction rates. How much are they contributing to cancer in humans? At what point will there be so much extinction that the planet will becomes virtually uninhabitable?

It's comforting to know that Monsanto the producers of DDT and Agent Orange are now in charge of our food supply isn't it?

[MohRokTah]

35. Ah, but weeds ARE surviving and breeding super weeds resistant to Glyphosate!

http://farmindustrynews.com/ag-technology-solution-center/glyphosate-resistant-weed-problem-extends-more-species-more-farms

BTW, the chemicals herbicides are not GMO, the corn and soybeans are the modified organisms that are resistant to glyphosate.

[gyroscope]

36. True

the farmer will then have to buy even more Roundup in an attempt to defeat the resistant superweeds.
no problem for Monsanto, they will gladly supply the extra Roundup. just more profits for them. and more damage to the environment.

the farmer is then stuck on a neverending treadmill and vicious cycle. nice racket eh?

[MohRokTah]

37. Oh better than that!

Monsanto develops an even NASTIER poison that will KILL the glyphosate resistant weeds after modifying the modified corn and soy beans to be resistant to the new, even DEADLIER herbicide!

Which will result in SUPER DUPER herbicide resistant weeds in a few years.

And the cycle of modified life continues ad nauseum!

[KurtNYC]

31. Enough with BS cigarette science -- Label GMO food.

[SidDithers]

41. But Seralini has a picture of rats with tumours!!...

Good post.

Sid

[LostInAnomie]

43. But...but...but... my feels and pseudo-intellectualism tell me it's bad.

LALAALLALALAALLALALLALLALALALA.

[HuckleB]

44. +1