Again, Yow - people who know what they are talking about know otherwise.
There is no shortage of -articles- regarding "the risks of GMOs" - you're quite versed on the headlines regarding the issue.
The problem is the actual research. Most of those articles cite one study done a few years ago which has since been illustrated horribly flawed (more on that later). The others all cite conferences where panels of scientists have been brainstorming -possible- risk scenarios and then commissioning studies into the likelihood of those scenarios playing out in practice (with none of those studies returning to show those risks to be likely or unmanageable).
They are inflammatory, biased articles written by marketers.
Now, for those who like to stand by the infamous "rats got tumors" study:
You must be registered for see links
"First of all, the press was manipulated into reporting the study uncritically when it was released. In exchange for an advance copy of the report, media was required to sign a confidentiality agreement that (according to the radio program On The Media) prohibited any publication until the middle of the press conference. This prevented reporters from checking the results with other scientists. The BBC, according to On The Media, refused to sign the agreement.
Although criticism arose soon after the media reports emerged, many people will find the original articles and not see later ones questioning the study. This ensures that the study will have a life of its own, regardless of flaws reported later."
You must be registered for see links
"One immediate problem, Newell-McGloughlin said, is that the line of rodents used in the study, known as Sprague-Dawley rats, are frequently used in cancer research because a large majority of them naturally develop tumors at a high rate, regardless of what they eat or how they're raised.
What's more, the rats were allowed to eat an unlimited amount of food, which increases their chances of developing tumors. And two is a very old age for these rats, which could account for the large rate of cancer seen across all groups, including the controls.
The small size of the control group also raised red flags. Even experienced scientists in the field had trouble interpreting data in the study, as seen in comments collected by the UK's Science Media Center, but it appears that the study included just 10 or 20 control animals.
That means there were at least nine times more test animals than control animals. If anything, studies of this kind usually include two or three times more controls than experimental animals."
They even have a few words for you in this one, Yow:
"Despite the large number of severe criticisms that have been launched at the new study, it is likely to cause lasting damage to the reputation of GM foods, especially among people who read only headlines.
"Unfortunately, the visual of these rats and the pervasiveness of the stories will most probably have a negative effect, especially since they are spreading through the net without context or fact-filters," Newell-McGloughlin said. "You can only hope that people will take the time to check out the facts behind the images. However, for many, a picture paints a thousand words, and that is as deep as they will go.""
As for the overall effectiveness of GMOs... that one is difficult to say - although:
You must be registered for see links
"The researchers estimate that farmers in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin received cumulative economic benefits of nearly $7 billion between 1996-2009, with benefits of more than $4 billion for non-Bt corn farmers alone. The scientists estimated that in Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin, borer populations in adjacent non-Bt fields declined by 28 to 73 percent, with similar reductions recorded in Iowa and Nebraska."
Now - the methods of the study were rather simplistic and cannot be used to determine cause. However, it does indicate that there is a potential advantage (though care will have to be taken to prevent large concentrations of bt-resistant populations).
Though I have seen other studies that indicate there is little cost/effect benefit to farmers in the U.S. (though these were based around localized experiments that did not attempt to control or introduce pest populations into the study) - which may very well be the case. The U.S. has been consistently farming for many years and has been using pesticides for many years to keep populations manageable.
However - that's not the case in the rest of the world, where attempts at large scale farming have resulted in flash-overs of parasitic populations that wipe out massive portions of the crop (over half).
In those areas - crops that express BT and other forms of pesticides that are not harmful to mammals will have a major cost/effect advantage (being able to cycle the expressed pesticide to prevent the establishment of populations resistant to one variety or another would be ideal). Which means most of the world's population - as most of the world's population cannot reliably treat their crops against pests.
So, go ahead Yow.
I challenge you to find a legitimate study, that I will not slaughter within ten minutes of opening the published work, with strong indications that any GMO on the market presents a significant risk to human health.
I'd recommend quality over quantity - but that's up to you.
