The basis of this argument is a paper written by an authority on the subject…There is absolutely nothing pseudoscientific here besides…your comment.

Can anyone think of a better example of pseudoscience or complete disregard for intellectual honesty than the attack on GMOs? I can't.

You're welcome, and just to reiterate: Dr. Lotter's paper was printed in a peer reviewed journal.

I think this is great and I wish the best to Don Lotter. GMOs need to be thoroughly analyzed which takes time. Any scientist will agree that you can not rush analysis on something that may affect peoples lives to this degree which it sounds like is exactly what has happened with the development of GMOs. Good luck Don! I support you! And thnx to JanforGore for sharing this!

You got your response. If you have a problem with the reports posted, take it up with the scientists who did the research. But you won't I'm sure. And if you don't want replies about pictures and such, don't bring it up because you have nothing else.

Scientific Evidence of Health Risks

It is also disingenuous to say that GMOs have not effected health when you have no proof of it, and is always the line used by the "deniers" or those making profit from them. The truth is, the health fallout from GMOs may well be in the form of allergies and other current maladies that would not be generalized as being from GMOs, but nervertheless are. Also, the fact that the shoddy tests used by the FDA and USDA to push these organisms through were done by Monsanto without allowing independent testing proves that consumers must be wary. Also, the fact that Monsanto and other companies are fighting so vehemently against labelling of GMOS in food is also a sign that they want no trail leading to health effects.

Test after test is now being performed independently and showing effects to health from Round Up as well. Now if you spray that crap on plants, you don't think it transfers it's poisons to what it is sprayed on? Please, again, if you are going to refute scientists please do so with the same data you expect others to provide, or else move on. The information has already been posted here ad nauseum for anyone to see. I just hope there are more scientists like Dr. Don Lotter and Dr. Ignacio Chapela in this world who will now stand up to the Gestapo tactics of Monsanto and companies like them that gag and threaten the truth.

I have refuted your claims, you've just ignored my points because you don't have a link to regurgitate.

I have a long post there, and all you did was complain about my criticism of YOUR choice for a picture in one article (which you commented on in said article) and then spend a paragraph basically saying that I didn't say anything.

On the contrary, I said quite a bit, and a response to that would be nice.

I could give a shit about you or any of your articles Jan, I don't have "disdain" for you. I don't lose sleep at night and grit my teeth over what you say.

I've posted something, and you've yet to reply. That's the simple truth, anything else you bring out of that is your own issue.

Great post, Jan.
Linking it up on my website!

First of all, they aren't MY pictures or MY reports. You are allowing your disdain for me to cloud your own judgement. Perhaps when you can come back with concrete proof of your own to refute anything stated here with your own scientific reports instead of calling everything irrelevant because you can't refute it, you might not look so irrelevant yourself. You look just like the climate change deniers you were wagging your finger at here yesterday when it suited your purpose. Now who looks embarrasing?

So of the all the things you just posted, only the cancer one was relevant as it was the only finding that wasn't outright rejected as false. And pesticides are another issue entirely that have nothing to do with GM foods.

By the way, that picture you just put up is a piece of ORGANIC corn, that's what it used to look like before selective breeding cultivated the modern corn. And how dishonest is it to put a scorpion's tail next to it? More scare tactics.

Anyway, onto the issue at hand, let's look at just the cancer claim right now.

"Toxins in GM plants can cause cancer, hormonal and reproductive problems and disorders of the nervous system. These chronic diseases are exploding all over the world and to our knowledge bacteria or viruses are not causing them. They may be due to chemicals contained in food. So, we definitely do not need food full of synthetic chemicals."

First off, cancer rates have remained practically the same since 1975 in the U.S. and, in fact, have declined when adjustments are made for population growth.

http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2006/browse_csr.php?section=2&page=sect_02_t...

Your report doesn't even establish what KIND of cancer GM foods are supposed to cause. Furthermore, he only lists A SINGLE CROP whose modification is to include toxins to fight off plant disease.

Hardly a universal case and he hasn't established exactly how these "hormonal changes" are damaging human beings.

Why is it so hard for any scientist on your side to come out and say "GM foods affect X area of the body because of Y change that causes Z disease?"

Could it be because the wholesale condemnation of gene modification doesn't even make sense?

Even THIS article says that it's "largest diet experiment in history" because they CANNOT FIND anything wrong with it, they have to point to boogeymen and point to data without establishing a link to that data, let alone causation.

Like I said, this wouldn't be hard to prove. Look at how easily artificial sweetener was demonized!

The studies are there. That was the point of this article. And if the information this scientist found is faulty put your money where your big mouth is.

That's because it IS the widespread scientific consensus that GM's aren't bad for you.

All the opposition does is boo-hoo about it and claim that there's a conspiracy, they've never been able to demonstrate their claims. And that's because modifying the genome of an organism doesn't do shit to your health, the notion is laughable when you understand how the science works. You'd have to be equally afraid of selectively bred crops.

You might as well be terrified of eating yellow peas instead of green ones, of eating buffalo instead of beef.

The notion is ridiculous, and there's a reason anti-GM people HAVE to resort to scare tactics and blaming Monsanto (who no one actually agrees with) because science isn't on their side.

It's not hard guys, do a medical study wherein you prove that an organically grown crop vs. a GM crop is significantly harmful in a controlled setting.

That's all it would fucking take! It took ONE study to nearly BAN artificial sweeteners because 200 times the dose of one of them gave a rat cancer.

But you can't do that, because they're not harmful.

You guys are no different than the anti-vaccine people, who also have never been able to demonstrate their claims and rely on faulty information.

This is another example of what government agencies want you know and don't know.

No GMO for me . Great post .

Hopefully his actions will encourage other scientists in his field to, well, come out of the closet, so to speak.

One example.

"There is an enormous gap in public knowledge about this issue."

Wow, is that an understatement.