A challenge to all GMO supporters.

[gcomeau]

165. Sigh...

Not all GMO foods are safe. Many never leave the lab for that reason.

Oh, you mean they're tested. And the tests are effective at determining which are safe and which are not.

Which leaves one wondering WTF the point of the OP was.


As for your quotes, if you want an honest debate try linking source material. Assuming of course you have READ the source material instead of just grabbing a list of out of context quotes off some website somewhere.



Your BMA quote comes from this document:

http://www.argenbio.org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf

Note number one: It is ten years old.
Note number two: This is the actual CONCLUSION reached in that statement. You know, the actual stance of the BMA:

"The Royal Society review (2002)17 concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of
specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the
introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially
available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no
robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and
surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit."

So about the most damning thing you can pull out of the conclusions reached by that ten year old report is that they call for further research, which of course because scientists will always call for further research. And guess what they spent the last 10 years doing? Further research. Which still all said GM foods are fine.



Your American Public Health Association quote is just saying "we think food labels are always a good idea". So the fuck what??? Umm, sure. And? that is not a statement that there is anything unsafe about GMO foods any more than saying inspecting our beef is a good idea is a condemnation of the safety of eating a hamburger.



ENNSER is not a major scientific association, they are a policy lobbying organization. They provide no data to back their statement that there is a lack of consensus they simply declare it.



I can find no source for your Schubert quote.



Your AMA quote is only saying that things people eat should get tested. Shocking! Do you know what they said at the EXACT SAME TIME they said that?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/21/news/la-heb-gmo-foods-medical-association-20120620

"The 500-ish-word statement, which is not yet up at the medical association's website, says among other things that as of this month, “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.”



Your National Academy of Sciences is just saying things should be monitored. Again, DUH. It is ALSO the maintained position of the NAS that GMO foods are safe. they put out an entire book on the subject. it is mostly a giant study on how to properly test and monitor the issue. But it did look at whether any testing to date had uncovered any kind of problems.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977/safety-of-genetically-engineered-foods-approaches-to-assessing-unintended-health

Page 8 of the Executive Summary:

"To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."



So basically I'm calling bullshit on your "124 other global health organizations claim" also since every single example you provided was bogus.

"want to ask your question in another way?"

No, I think it demonstrated my point rather well on the first try considering what your response to it was.