Replies

The biggest problem I have with any anti-GM study is that they almost always hide data that doesn't support their conclusions, and unfortunately, my first reaction when reading about the fish meal was ‘they let that slip through...’

When things go from science to dogma, it creates doubt in any rational examiner as to the data being presented. To me, it would seem natural that a crop which is designed to be resistant to a pesticide regimen and is heavy coated with that pesticide would naturally contain that same pesticide in some amount especially in animal feed. And it seems to be contrary to logic to feed animals an herbicide and expect no reaction from the animals.

So there appears to be multiple vectors in this study; is the genetic modification the actual difference? Supposedly it is less nutritious; that would be an issue. Did the pigs get a far lower dose of herbicides and pesticides due to the change? And how much of an effect did the extra nutrition from the fish meal change all of this?

It would seem to me that it would not be hard at all to conceive and implement actual testing of this theory. Three populations of pigs, each given a very specific feed, and see what the difference is. According to the farmer, the results of the change were dramatic once the switch was made, so it doesn't even sound like it'd be a long study.

I suspect I know what the various results would be, but would certainly welcome a surprise.

I have no ax to grind for the benefit or detriment of Monsanto, but buried in this article's invective is the statement, "..the devastating health impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides and the associated GM crops modified to tolerate it."

It seems to me that the "research" in this article lept to the devastating effects of GM crops without addressing fully the obvious component of the glyphosate herbicides that are incorporated in the crops. In short, acknowledging that the modification of crops was to accommodate the herbicides, it is very likely that the GM crops themselves are inherently non-toxic.

I come away from this article with the impression that evil GM crops are inherently disease inducing, not that the GM crops are poisonous because of the induced component of glyphosate herbicide. The low information voter, and liberals, will scan this article to reinforce the growing misconception that GM equals bad.

What may be the biggest irony of this development in GM agriculture and public perception is that this has all come about because of the Greenies rabid hatred of effective, cheap pesticides, e.g. DDT, and herbicides.

This has become a vicious cycle of big agriculture trying to stay one step ahead of the next round of prohibited substances and techniques, and the green, vegan, hippy environmentalist trying to shut down all industry and return the world to a peasant based rural setting where the life expectancy of the noble's serfs is 35 years.