Anti-progressive John Roulac: Anti GMO leader, Big Organic businessman, master manipulator

[progressoid]

36. Of course I know Syngenta produces GMOs.

That's why you are free to ignore that study if you want.

I'm not sure what you mean about where the aggregate studies money originates? The funding source is listed for each study. Or are you implying that Monsanto et. al. are paying the Italian Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry Resources, the Swiss National Science Foundation and thousands of other scientists and governments to falsify these studies?

Regarding safety, science can certify the existence of harm, but not its absence. For instance,

Roasted coffee is known to contain 826 volatile chemicals; 21 have been tested chronically and 16 are rodent carcinogens; caffeic acid, a nonvolatile rodent carcinogen, is also present. A typical cup of coffee contains at least 10 mg (40 ppm) of rodent carcinogens (mostly caffeic acid, catechol, furfural, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). The evidence on coffee and human health has been recently reviewed, and the evidence to date is insufficient to show that coffee is a risk factor for cancer in humans.

Also, there would certainly be reward and fame for the person who finds proof of GMO's harm. Yet, that hasn't happened. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that there’s no good evidence GMOs are unsafe. Hundreds of studies back up that conclusion.


Here's a long term animal study for ya:

Numerous experimental studies have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals are comparable with those fed isogenic non-GE crop lines. United States animal agriculture produces over 9 billion food-producing animals annually, and more than 95% of these animals consume feed containing GE ingredients. Data on livestock productivity and health were collated from publicly available sources from 1983, before the introduction of GE 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 GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE feed.

https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/jas/articles/92/10/4255

Copyright © 2014. American Society of Animal Science

1This work was supported by funds from the W. K. Kellogg endowment and the California Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of California–Davis. The authors declare no competing financial interests.