Well, let's take a page out of that same journal from the previous week. The process of ensuring food safety is far from perfect in the US. Rather than having a de jure process of screening foods before they come to the market, the FDA relies on the fact that companies submit safety profiles in order to avoid costly lawsuits down the road. But, since I'm sure you'll point that out as a serious shortcoming (I agree), you should also note that all the same foods have been approved in the EU and the US and the regulatory agencies of each follow similar guidelines. What does that entail? It means comparing to the status quo, and where differences in metabolic profiles appear, examining any that have a reasonable chance of toxicity. This process applies to all new foods, GM or not. What has that found? Then, when it comes to the new protein in particular: As the old saying goes, "the dose makes the poison." You can find trace amounts of uranium if just about everything if you look hard enough, but as it's below a few parts per million, toxicologists aren't going to raise their eyebrows. The same goes for CryIAb, which has had had its dosage measured up to 4000 mg/kg body weight without an measured toxicity effects[1]. But hey, that's not all, in the case of new / elevated levels of proteins, the lab scientists then also look at a number of factors including pH stability (Can it survive breakdown in the stomach), sequence identity to known allergens, and 90-day feeding studies. Now tell me that's still laughable. The question of post-market retrospective studies is not unwarranted, but the trouble there is that the entire agriculture pipeline makes no distinction between GM and non-GM grains. All corn is equal in the eyes of the elevator, and from there on out, it goes through hundreds of different pipes before coming out as a processed product for all the "foods" sold in stores today. You want to label food containing GMOs? You'd need completely separate pipes for each one of those processes. Still want that label? I lied, it does exist, it's included in the umbrella label, "USDA-certified organic". Most everything else is a "may contain GMOs but we're not sure because the industrial monster is beyond human comprehension and changing every day." To be fair, it's already on seed companies to convince the farmers, and most consumers don't give a rats' ass about how the reliability of yields from year to year or the cost of seed vs. biomass produced vs. water usage. Not that these don't matter. And not that GMOs are always the right answer to that those questions (I personally don't believe they are), but safety vs. ag policy are very different questions, the latter of which is much more nuanced and difficult to answer. You're welcome to pick apart any Monsanto study all you want, but the fact of the matter is when the majority of published evidence (Coming not just from Monsanto, but plenty of independent research agencies) points in one direction, extraordinary evidence is expected to sway opinions. When the studies can't get their methodology right[2][3][4], excuse everyone else for being skeptical of the results. Unless you're a fan of homeopathy, the general consensus is that it's things that you put in your body that poison it. There's plenty of steel, plastic, and copper sitting in the room around me, but until I eat them or breath their vaporized versions, I'm fairly confident they present me no harm. Now, farms still do plenty to poison the environments in which they are grown, and the process by which fertilizer is produced isn't exactly pleasant, but those are separate from GMOs as a whole. The rest of your comment is just a tirade against industrial farming which I have no interest in defending. The fight against "Big Ag" (And "Big Org") isn't unfounded, especially from an environmentalist point of view. But you seem to be relying on the argument that "nature always good, scientists always bad", when I am asking you to break down the field into its individual components. Don't fight "GMOs", fight Roundup, fight processed foods, fight runoff, fight subsidies, fight factory farms, fight biofuels. Fight Nestle, fight every damn company that pushes junk food on kids every day[5]. Fight monoculture, fight the fact that almost all of the damn food that ends up on the average person's plate is made up of corn. Fight the policies that push more and more farmers out of a job each year. But stop fighting a broad-ass term that still has plenty of potential to help those who need it. [1] http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1996/August/Day-02/pr-8... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22382376 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22074695 (Yes that's a Monsanto shill, but it's relatively well written and I'm too lazy to pull up more than two of the many studies critical of Aris et al.)It's amusing to me that anyone would use this as a justification to prove that GMOs are safe when there's no way of tracking (due to lack of the infamous labelling) of whether any illnesses are actually related to GMOs. It's laughable really.
Compositional analyses of 129 transgenic crops submitted to the FDA for marketing authority from 1995 to 2012 have all failed to detect any significant differences—or any believed to have biological relevance—between the engineered plant and its nonengineered counterpart or reference species according to an analysis of the literature conducted jointly by FDA and Dow AgroScience scientists10.
For all transgenic events commercialized so far, the concentration of the newly introduced protein in the context of a whole plant (and the consumable parts derived from it) has been so low that it has been considered not to pose a risk.
What an interesting admission.
Then of course, any study that shows GMOs dangers is "flawed", has "flimsy evidence", with "downright mistruths". While every "well researched" study is pro-GMOs.
Pardon me?! Says who?