|Actually, pigs were hurt in this study.|
There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence that GM products are harmful to human beings or the environment.
And this is still true despite another “study” supposedly showing GMO feed turned the little piggies’ tummies to mush.
Actually, that’s not at all what that study showed. In fact, this one is probably less credible (if that’s possible) than the one that purportedly showed GMOs gave rats tumors, which was summarily rejected by the scientific community.
This time the study was done by Judy Carmen. As you can see from her website, she’s nothing more than an anti-GMO activist. While that should probably make her “research” not credible all by itself, numerous scientists have given her “study” a look and concluded it was just dead wrong.
But I’m not a scientist, so instead of attempting to make a lame excuse at explaining it, why don’t you just check out:
- Mary Lynas’ response (remember, he was the anti-GM activist until he “got science”)
- These weed scientists in Wyoming response
- This guy’s (who understands all the technical data) response
- This surgeon, who has a PhD from UMD, response
- And this scientists’s length response (where he also looks at other anti-science claims by anti-GM folks)
In the end, you clearly see the “study” by Cameron was a bunch of hog wash (pun intended). She didn’t use scientific principals, she didn’t use scientific methodology, and her analysis of the data was wrong. In fact, the data actually showed the pigs who ate GM feed had less inflammation than those who ate the non-GM feed.
But that’s just details that she conveniently overlooked.
The most horrifying part of the whole thing, however, is the way these animals were treated. According to the last scientist on my list, the animals were particularly ill to begin with. All of them were suffering from pneumonia and not treated.
“In the end, this study abused a fairly large number of innocent pigs to produce no useful data.”
How sad and pathetic.
Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net.
if gmo's are so great then lable it let people make their own choice. i do not understand the rational behind keeping people ignorant and uable to choose to opt in or opt out.
It has nothing to do with keeping people ignorant or stopping them from opting in or out (what does that even mean?!). If you're so afraid of GMOs, then buy organic (which is stupid). The real aim of those pushing labeling has nothing to do with consumer choice. It has EVERYTHING to do with scaring people. I've addressed this several times. Bad Ideas: GMO Labels <a href="https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/09/bad-ideas-gmo-labels.htmlhttps://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/09/bad-… />Why Label GMOs? <a href="https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/05/why-label-genetically-modified-foods.htmlhttps://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/05/why-… />Another good example — these labeling techniques are simply for organic producers to make more money at the expense of the farmers trying to actually increase yields, lower our environmental footprint, and be efficient. They've already capitalized on this: https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/07/why-…
If forced labeling of GMO's were to take place, and if it included mutagenic ones, then 98% of the food in the market would have the label.
Thank you for being a responsible blogger.