How many times have you heard anti-GMO activists tell you that there isn’t any science supporting the safety of biotechnology. Even if there is some type of research, they refuse to believe because it was performed by someone “in the industry.”
But that assertion is completely false. Need proof?
Some Italian scientists decided to pull together all the credible (sorry, Natural News is not credible) scientific studies about genetically modified foods to see what the actual, tested data says about biotechnology’s safety. To make the research manageable, they limited their search to only those studies taking place since 2002. In total, the scientists summarized 1,783 studies and all of them concluded that GMOs do not pose a risk to humans and animals. Nor is there a significant and detrimental environmental impact.
Many of the studies were independent studies. Despite the fear-monger’s claims, there is a significant and substantial collection of third party studies indicating that biotechnology is safe.
The researchers were also able to take a look several categorical subsets of studies, including general literature, environmental impact, safety of consumption and traceability. All of them came out positively in favor of biotechnology.
In conclusion, the study points out that the controversy and debate about the technology is completely made-up by those who (typically) have a vested interest in opposing GMOs.
In short, genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history. This year celebrates the 30th anniversary of GM technology, and the paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public’s health. The reason for the public’s distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false debates.
The collection of studies will be added to GENERA, which is a compilation of all biotechnology studies ever done (it is in the process of being completed) so that the public has access to the information. That means anyone call pull up the information and research further. I can’t promise everyone will understand the complex material, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less credible.
Let’s just stop for a second and appreciate the fact that there is an entire database full of scientific studies, which are available to all consumers, proving the safety of genetically modified crops. There is no hiding here, folks. If you think you have a “right to know,” then get reading.
While a database full of 2,000+ studies revealing that biotechnology is safe will convince most rational people, I’m not sure those opposed to science and progress and technology will believe it. But, the best we can do is put forth the information and evidence as proof. After all, you can lead a horse to water…
You can read more on the study and results here.
It's sad to think that people in developing countries may have to starve because of politics and false claims.
Are you aware that gmo and monsantos food has been refused growing rights in certain parts of Europe and India …there is a reason for this and it's not due to lack of research . Remember area 51 and the long cover-up that is finally being admitted to . This too is another of the many cover-ups
I have posted about how GMOs are treated in the rest of the world here: <a href="https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/04/but-rest-of-world-bans-gmos-right.htmlhttps://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/04/but-… />The good news is that even in parts of the world where biotech products can't be grown (but can be consumed!) they are starting to open their eyes to this wonderful technology. But you obviously seem to think the government is attempting to hide something at Area 51, so I'm not banking on you believing a reasonable and legitimate response, let alone 2,000 credible scientific studies.
Believing that GMO's are necessary to feed the world is also naiive. Politics are why people are starving. The US produces enough each year to feed the planet 3 times over. And how wasteful we are…seriously. It's so much more than the health aspect of digesting them. IDK I'm studying this in college and I sure haven't even heard a reference to a legit study proving either way.
GMOs are necessary to feed the world because by 2050, our population will be so big we will have to produce as much food each year that we have produced in all of farming history. Saving some food from the garbage is NOT going to cut it.By the way, I would demand my money back if you're studying biotech in college and have yet to hear a legitimate study. I linked to 2,0000 scientific studies alone in this very post. You're school is failing you.
I truly have zero comprehension about why anyone would sincerely object to this tech. It's retarded.
I object to it because: Monsanto, Obama, Benghazi, Big pHarm, Terrorism and MONSANTO.
So you would deny starving people food, because you have some weird, irrational fear of a perfectly legitimate US company?You realize Monsanto is not the only company that produces biotech products; right?
I believe in Biotech and GMOs I believe in the fact that we can evolve "things" faster and for what we need. The citrus industry might be able to be saved through GMOs not to mention the fact that we have to do more with less to feed the world. What I do not believe in is property and copy rights for seeds and plants. I feel it is damn near impossible to stop a bird or other anal from consuming and pooping out a nice new fertilized copyrighted plant
Thanks for your comments, Snip. I do have an article about copyright/patent protection in the works. I did just want to point out that no one is going to be sued because there is a random, voluntary "copyrighted" plant on their property. It would take quite a bit more than just that!
Well I hit publish before I meant to so my last post is unfinished. However, I think you might get my point
Study after study can never counter or convince something that has reached religious fervor. No reasonable or logical thought can alter an ideology. Just look at Hawaii. It's become one of zealots already. Exclude the zealots and work with the reasonable before they reach that point.
DUHH – Every plant in existence today is very heavily modified from it's original form in the days of the dinosaurs. It's called 'evolution'.!!!!!!!
There are no significant, broad-based double-blind longitudinal studies on the effects of GMOs. The typical argument given is basically that such studies are impossible, but of course those are precisely the sort of studies you want to have when you're talking about altering…you know…thousands of years of human behavior with non-GMOs (at least by direct engineering). If the alternative is that the only way we can hope to do longitudinal studies is by compelling the population to be guinea pigs, we should at least have sufficient labeling to allow some people to live on one side of such an "experiment."
I love that you think by "ramping up" the standard that biotechnology has to meet that you're going to somehow trick us into realizing it is bad. And your idea that somehow thousands of years of human history is going to make a difference, I'm not sure you completely understand how GMOs are produced…..Nonetheless, there are thousands of studies showing GMOs are harmless and yet you have determined that they are dangerous. A little arrogant to think you're smarter than all those scientists; isn't it? Science is pretty cool because we can actually take a look at different elements in a study and see if it is reliable or not. That means that no matter who does the study, anyone can check it for credibility. I would assume that if you actually started looking at those 2,000+ studies (of which over 600 are by third parties), you would realize that those studies all have the elements of reliability.If you would like to look at long-term results of GMOs, you don't have to look any farther than our farms. GMOs have been used in animal feed for about 25 years now. That means there has been several generations of livestock that have survived and reproduced while eating genetically modified foods. Heck, humans have also been eating them for 25 years now. Just as those 2,000+ studies have indicated, the biotech products that are available commercially are completely safe.Labeling efforts have repeatedly been shown to be less about "right to know" and more about fear-based labeling.
TheFarmersDaughterUSa you should wake up to the facts of the Science of Glyphosate and Human interaction, You should really educate yourself and not believe everything you read. Area 51 is not even the real name of the facility you're talking about anyway.
So instead of relying on science we're supposed to talk about Area 51? Thanks for proving my point…
Hi FD, the link led to a single study, interpreting a number of other studies.That's far from what you are claiming here
You clicked on the wrong link, it's this one: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/
"wake up to the facts" ? the facts are in this 2000 study systematic review. also many other studies i've recently read up on. And if you actually look at the studies/articles/webpages of anti-GMO writers there is either inclusion bias, the studies are poorly done- not peer reviewed, constant referencing of that person's own previous works, no scientific data at all, and my favorite most recently- basically stating correlation=causation (this one drove me crazy, about autism increase at the same time gmo implementation). this big anti-gmo movement needs to stop.
“We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops”
“In total, the scientists summarized 1,783 studies”
no, not all were studies.
“All of them came out positively in favor of biotechnology.”
“We selected”
hahaha. scientists don’t have any bias at all!
It is always amusing (incredible, actually) to me that the folks that want to stand in opposition to scientific consensus usually have nothing more than baseless accusations to lob at the science. “Scientists are all biased!” isn’t actually a credible accusation. You realize that biases and conflicts of interests are usually reported in scientific research; right? And, unless you want to point out the credible research that was kept out finding the opposite result, your silly accusation means nothing.