2 things to remember. 1) Bt corn have much much less insect damage therefore much less potential vectors for plant diseases. 2) glyphosate being "potentially carcinogenic" makes it in the same class as chocolate and coffee.

Also, shift work is potentially carcinogenic.

Ask a scientific sub if you want real answers (or just do a search of the sub). I suggest r/askscience.

[deleted]

There are no long term studies so we don't know the long term effects is the most simple answer. It doesn't seem like you are here looking for actual information but instead shilling for GMO's.

Monsanto has proven 1000's of times over that they only care about profit not about human health whatsoever. So what would be the point of trusting them that GMO's are safe when there is no reason for them to be honest? What is the point of having patented seeds that you have to re-purchase every year or get sued? Have you really never researched into GMO's? because it seems that you are pretty biased toward them.

Much like pharmaceutical companies for profit, if you trust them take all of their vaccines and shots. Same with Monsanto, if that is a company that you trust and think cares about our health then I'd eat all the GMO's that you want. If you don't have any reason to trust them and or just want to be on the safe side eat organic/non-gmo and grow as much food yourself as you can.

I gave you my view. I just don't think you are sincerely interested in the saftey of GMOs as much you are interested in defending them. And if you don't think the internet (and especially reddit) are rampant with corporate shills then you've defiantly never researched into this topic for yourself.

It's not necessarily the Genetically Modifying of the Organisms that is the health concern. Selective breeding is something that humans have been doing for years. Now we are using a bit more science. Still, nothing horrible.

The issue is that these organisms are being modified to survive extreme drenching of pesticides and herbicides. So, in theory, it's great. We build corn that can survive after killing all of the weeds and pests. Makes farming easier, more crops, win win right? Well, if the herbicides and pesticides weren't so harmful it would be. These chemicals are known carcinogens and have even been proven to cause reproductive issues and change the sexual organs on amphibians.

You certainly can easily debate that GMO crops might not cause issues. They have been studied for years and do not seem to cause conclusive correlations with disease. But, it isn't the GMO. It's the herbicides and pesticides that these GMO crops get sprayed with that is causing health problems from cancer to autism. Now, they have sprayed so much that they have created super weeds that can no longer be killed with herbicides.

There's a good documentary on the subject on HULU called Our Daily Poison.

Stick with organic produce. If for any other reason that simply "Why not". There aren't issues revolving around organic produce. There are issues surrounding GMO crops.

extreme drenching

Can you quantify this? For example, the standard application rate for glyphosate is 22oz/acre, a far cry from "extreme drenching".

Stick with organic produce

Organic agriculture uses plenty of pesticides.

That's the standard rate for glysophate... Not additional herbicides and pesticides

Organic sprays pesticides as well. Often more because the type they use isn't as effective.

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

From that link.

"What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic."

Obviously there are natural things in nature that are harmful and synthetic things in our environment that are beneficial.

But, when it comes to my food, I would rather it be sprayed with pesticides and herbicides that are derived from natural sources, rather than synthetic chemicals.

I know about the few natural pesticides and herbicides that are more toxic than synthetic ones, like: Pyrethrums and Rotenone.

That's why I always attempt to purchase produce from brands that state which ones they use, specifically non-toxic: Insecticidal Soap, Neem Oil and BT.

Cheers!

In the country that I live in, genetic modification of food is not required to be disclosed, and a large amount of money has been spent to keep it that way.

That should tell you why you will not be able to find a satisfactory answer to this question. The only groups that can even test these GMOs are connected to their production and sale; the rest of us are left guessing what exactly has actually occurred to the food we see at the grocery store.

You should read through my last post

yeah dont eat GMO, tell that to the person you really love.

Nothing else to say, the other peoples you dislike, dont tell em.

He won't tell, you, that is the extent of his knowledge. I actually know about GMOs and can speak objectively so PM me if you have questions, I don't like doing long comment chains, especially in this sub where every other comment is a corporate shill accusation.

go read about GMO that are not fertile, then go read about the farmers who feed GMO corns to his pigs and now they cant have babies anymore.

or the german study when they fed mices GMO corns and they develop cancers to final stage in 2 weeks.

link of herbicides insecticides to cancer,

they modify nature to give the plant more immunities with DNA from other plants, animal, fish, lizard, virus, etc without really knowing what it does to humans, because the longest term study on GMO is 6 months, but they say its safe to human, yet they only did study GMO on humans for 6 months, ohhh sorry, i mean we are the test subjects.

look at graph of cancer rates per year, you can clearly see rate going up, yet we have best "science" compare to decades before, isnt it strange? it also coincide with the rate we adopted using GMO from monsantos.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/a9/5f/1364660307_2492_thyroid.jpg?itok=bfn0ZRgD

That's a nice graph of correlation. Here's one showing the correlation between autism rates and organic food consumption.

Rather than graphing correlations, you may want to take a look at the results of studies that were designed to detect (or eliminate) causative factors of cancers.

Likethis article in a scientific journal that found no major decreases in cancers in people who ate organic (i.e. non-gmo) diets. There was a slight decrease in NHL cases, but there was also a slight increase in breast cancer rates, so...

You eat GMO? good for you. Im not eating your poison.

GMO are like the wedding ring diamonds, its a publicity stunt.

I don't go out of my way to eat GMOs nor do I go out of my way to avoid the either.

Im not eating your poison.

There is absolutely zero credible evidence that GMOs are poison.

Yeah, they say, GMO is safe for humans, but they only tested GMO for 6 months long, that is enough to say its safe? nope.

and how is that not credible? http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

I dont want to look like the rats, I suggest you do the same.

The plan is, feed humans with cancer inducing food for you to die before 67 years old before you touch your pensions.

Also before you die at 67 year sold they will sell your anti cancer drugs and chemotherapy to slow down the cancer and make more money from you.

Its a great plan overall, I just dont feel its a good idea to trigger that trap.

How is the retracted Seralini study not credible, you ask? I'll ignore that Seralini was already the founder and president of an anti GMO organization long before he conducted this study, because if the science is good then his personal bias shouldn't matter. I'll ignore that Seralini already had a history of poorly conducted GMO studies, because if the science on THIS study is good then that shouldn't matter. I'll ignore that Seralini didn't release any photos of his control group, because if the data and methodology is good, then alright then. But the science isn't good, the data is spotty, and the methodology is questionable. Seralini used Sprague-Dawley rats, which typically have a life span of 2 years and are bread to have a whopping 70-80% chance of developing cancer before end of life. Because of their high chances of dying within two years, the recommended sample size is 65 per group. Séralini only used ten per group. The only useful thing to be gained from the Seralini study is how NOT to conduct a study.

Yeah, they say, GMO is safe for humans, but they only tested GMO for 6 months long, that is enough to say its safe? nope.

IMO (and that of the majority of scientists who actually understand the subject matter) yes. Why- how long would you recommend? (Just keep in mind that foods that have mutations induced by radiation undergo exactly zero safety testing....)

and how is that not credible? http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

That's Seralini's study. There are PLENTY of reasons that it's not credible, ranging from piss-poor methodologies to not including data that contradicted his conclusion to not disclosing conflicts of interest in his funding. (That study has been retracted, by the way...)

I haven't gone deep, but here's what I can offer.

Some strains of fruits/veggies are genetically modified to be "Roundup-ready", meaning they are resistant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. Very convenient for farmers who can spray a metric fuckton of herbicide on their crops and kill the weeds, keep the crops.

But Roundup does nasty things to humans who ingest it. Among other things, it kills your gut flora. Basically it can shut down your digestive system. You'll get the shits and your body will be unable to process nutrients.

And it's carcinogenic, so welcome to Tumor Town.

So if you're eating genetically modified food, there's a good chance you're eating Roundup too.

I have no idea what splicing a carrot with a toad will do to you,

There's my little contribution. Also, fuck you Monsanto PR shills in advance. I hope you spend many years in prison.

Some strains of fruits

There are no Roundup Ready fruits. None, not anywhere on this planet.

farmers who can spray a metric fuckton of herbicide on their crops and kill the weeds

The standard application rate for glyphosate is 22oz/acre.

But Roundup does nasty things to humans who ingest it

Citation?

So if you're eating genetically modified food, there's a good chance you're eating Roundup too.

Roundup is used on non-GMOs as well, in particular for pre harvest desiccation.

Also, fuck you Monsanto PR shills in advance

-1

[deleted]

*Tomatoes

Yes, they are fruit. Your link is a discussion and says nothing

There are no GMO tomatoes currently on the market

Right, you can drink a whole quart of [Roundup] and it won't hurt you.

How is that relevant to the conversation? Many pesticides (organic and synthetic) are safe as a pesticide but one would not consume them directly.

But Roundup is unsafe, even in small amounts.

Are you getting this list of rebuttals from your PR firm or from Monsanto directly? I feel like we have a right to know. People's health is at risk here.

I'd like to speak with your manager. I'm not kidding.

But Roundup is unsafe, even in small amounts.

Evidence?

Are you getting this list of rebuttals from your PR firm or from Monsanto directly? I feel like we have a right to know. People's health is at risk here.

Perhaps you should take this up with the EPA and USDA

I'd like to speak with your manager. I'm not kidding.

Cute

Not kidding. There is civil and possibly criminal liability at stake.

oh my god are you fucking kidding me

[deleted]

Yes, apples are fruit. The link you provided does not show any roundup ready apples.

There are no Roundup Ready apples on the market.

Edit - I'm pretty sure glyphosate (targets weeds) is not used on apple trees.

"A study examining the effect of glyphosate on bacteria that grow in the GI tract of chickens found that beneficial bacteria were susceptible, and harmful bacteria were resistant, to glyphosate. The growth of four types of beneficial bacteria—Lactobacillus, Bacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Enterococcus—was reduced at low concentrations of glyphosate. "

http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/03/gut-wrenching-new-studies-reveal-insidious-effects-glyphosate/

Good question. One would think there should have been hundreds, if not thousands, of such tests done prior to releasing to the mass market. But alas...

Yep. Pick a source.

• https://startpage.com/do/search?query=gut+flora+glyphosate

Even better:

• You can chug a quart of Roundup for us.

Dude I could smell you from your first comment. So can everybody in this thread. You're having the reverse intended effect, just like the vaccine guys.

Because it would result in you drinking a quart of delicious Roundup.

Would you eat a kilogram of your precious salt on video for us? Would you also please eat a kilogram of salt given to you by someone you don't know who has ill intentions toward you?

No? Didn't think so. Keep shilling for Big Sodium, bro.

The guy just said you could drink a quart of it and it wouldn't hurt you. Wait wait... Let me quote directly:

"I do not believe that glyphosate in Argentina is causing increases in cancer. You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you."

And that would have gone unchallenged if the interviewer hadn't called him on it.

So? The fact that he doesn't want to drink it doesn't mean that he's wrong. The fact that he is wrong doesn't mean that it's dangerous in the quantities anybody in reality is ingesting.

So are you stating that Monsanto's Roundup product is safe to ingest? In what quantities?

Rather than spreading doubt, just come out and make a positive statement. And when you're proven wrong, we'll hold your PR firm party to a billion dollar class-action lawsuit.

Go ahead.

OK, let's start:

I claim that it's safe to ingest one molecule. Is this incorrect? What quantities do you suggest are unsafe, and where is your evidence for these claims?

Here is my evidence, which covers much more than one molecule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human_toxicity

Human acute toxicity is dose-related. Acute fatal toxicity has been reported in deliberate overdose.[54][55] Early epidemiological studies did not find associations between long-term low-level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.[56][57][58] In 2013 the European commission reviewed a 2002 finding that had concluded equivocal evidence existed of a relationship between glyphosate exposure during pregnancy and cardiovascular malformations and found the evidence "fails to support a potential risk for increased cardiovascular defects as a result of glyphosate exposure during pregnancy."[59] A 2013 review found that neither glyphosate nor typical glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) pose a genotoxicity risk in humans under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.[60]

No?

The EPA, which last reviewed glyphosate in 1993, considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in dermal and oral acute toxicity.[31] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.[31] As of March 2015, the EPA was in the midst of reviewing glyphosate's toxicity.[5]

Is that not enough?

A 2013 systematic review by the German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), conducted as part of the EFSA's review process, examined epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies that it found valid, and found that "no classification and labelling for carcinogenicity is warranted" and did not recommend a carcinogen classification of either 1A or 1B.[9]:Volume 1, p139, see also 34–37 It was provided to the EFSA in January 2014 and published by the EFSA in December 2014[9][61][62]

I assume that that's not enough either, right? I mean, clearly the European commision, the EPA, and the EFSA are all on Mon$atan's payroll. They can afford to do this while making literally orders of magnitude less money than oil companies, which have 100% bought out all climate scientists, which is why you see all of them agreeing that anthropogenic climate change isn't real. Right?

But I mean, hey, if toxicity and carcinogenicity aren't enough, let's just talk straight oral LD-50s in mg/kg (for rats):

Glyphosate: 5,108

Vinegar: 3,350

Salt: 3,000

Can you tell me more about how dangerous glyphosate is?

By the way, where's the video of you eating the kg of salt, you Big Sodium puppet? That's all I wanted, but you evidently are too much of a coward and enjoy your paycheck too much. Why haven't you made a positive statement?

So, as a representative of your PR firm, you're making a positive statement that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, that there is no correlation between glyphosate and cancer. Correct?

Please keep ignoring everything I've said so that you can fit the world to your chosen narrative. Scientists who know more about this than I do (and much more about it than you do) have come to the conclusion that it's noncarcinogenic. It isn't something that I believe, it's something that's true to the best of anybody on the planet's knowledge.

Further, I'm a grad student. Please present some evidence that I'm secretly a PR firm employee; certainly everybody who disagrees with you is paid to do so, because nobody could do that of their own free will.

[deleted]

That's the computer scientist (as opposed to, you know, a biologist or a specialist in genetic engineering) whose whole study consisted of "these things kinda correlate, so that's all the evidence I need to prove it definitely causes it" isn't it?

[deleted]

So just what I said then: someone with no experience in the field produced a report that would be an F even for a high-schooler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[deleted]

Okay, let me restate without linking to what you call "the corporate fraud that is wikipedia". Here goes:

Correlation does not imply causation