Further testing needed to deem GMOs as ‘safe’
The Another Voice column, “Fight against GMOs in schools a waste of time,” was a tissue of irrelevancies, half-truths at best and outright falsehoods.
Julianna LeMieux wrote: “There are no known negative health effects.” Both the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Britain’s Royal Society, in their reviews of GMOs and human and animal health, emphasized the need for further testing beyond 90-day toxicological studies.
It should be obvious that one cannot claim to have not found “negative health effects” when one hasn’t looked for them!
And even 90-day studies have reported structural changes in the intestinal lining of animals fed GM-corn, which researchers suggested may be due to inflammation caused by “Cry 1Ab proteins produced by GM-corn that act as insecticides.” (“Effect of genetically modified corn on the jejunal mucosa of adult male albino rats,” Marwa Ibrahim and Ebtsam Okasha.)
Or, perhaps due to changes in the compositional profile of the proteomes of GM crops, as reported in Nature. (“An integrated multi-omics analysis of NK603 Roundup tolerant GM maize,” Robin Mesnage.) This article deals a potentially lethal blow to the “substantially equivalent” rule (or ruse) perpetrated by Michael Taylor, a former lawyer for Monsanto, while he was at the FDA.
Note that, according to TruthWiki, “ACSH … through their own actions … have discredited their own theories … In fact, most of their theories have been disproven by independent, reliable research that has no ‘skin in the game.’ ”
One final note: LeMieux doesn’t indicate whether any of the “Nobel laureates” who signed the ACSH’s letter to Greenpeace were specialists in bioinformatics and/or proteomics. Or are they like the scientists claiming there is “no convincing evidence” of anthropogenic global warming, the overwhelming majority of whom are not climate scientists?