Why Do Supporters of Genetically Engineered Foods Insist on Organics for Their Own Families?
Most of them don't.
As for your links the first is rated red by web of trust, so I didn't visit it. The 2nd displayed no information.
Edit - I see the 2nd linked to a PDF. So there is something there. But I found it rather unconvincing.
Different cultivars and variants of crops have long been developed from mutations. Sometimes selecting from among naturally occurring mutations, sometimes pushing mutation with radiation or chemical mutagens. Genetic engineering is more directed, and only more dangerous if your trying to get a more dangerous result. Specifically genetically engineered crops could be dangerous due to the specific changes caused, but that wouldn't make such crops in general more dangerous. Crops engineered to produce a pesticide could be more dangerous to the extent the pesticide is more dangerous, but if the alternative is a large scale use of pesticides from outside the plant, or allowing pests, the engineered pesticide producers might be the safest. Other engineered plants would have even less reason to be particularly dangerous.
The 3 months studies are a joke.
Maybe, but responding to one joke study with a contradicting joke study doesn't get you anywhere.
It is true - 100% established.
Nonsense. Also again if all those points where true, it still wouldn't be relevant. It might discredit Monsanto and/or their studies, but doing so, doesn't establish that the study where discussion is solid.
If the validity of the control group depends on unreleased information, how can you claim that 10 was too small to yield a credible result?
10 is obviously too small. The specific confidence level you would get from 10, would require more information, but you don't need the specific number to know that its too low. Similar to how I wouldn't need to know the exact population of either Gary, Indiana, or China, to know that the later is more than the former. |
