Replies

If you know what any of that means please post it and save us all the lengthy process.

Geez, it's 70 pages long and goes in depth into what the title said. It's a review of that subject and is not written in any horrible technical language. Remember the SNL skit about Prechewed Charlies Steak House? You can get a lot more satisfaction from food if you chew it yourself. Anyway, the basic gist is that GM food has been tested on a variety of animals in the same way that everything else is tested. There have been few tests on people, not because it's seen to be so dangerous, but because it's been deemed to NOT be dangerous. Those who point to the lack of human trials as evidence somehow of something nefarious are operating at about the same intellectual level as someone claiming, "Okay, carrots are safe to eat and beets are safe to eat, but we can't combine carrots and beets in the same dish without extensive human trials first to determine the possibility that these two foods, separately all right, together could kill you! And forget about barrots or carreets! Something like that is just plain against nature, which means, of course, that it's got to be harmful, since we know that nature is benign and harmless and not evil like human technology and chemistry otherwise aluminum would still be in bauxite in the ground instead of pouring hundreds of millions of gallons of soda down the throats of millions of children!"