GMO Studies

Bearfootfarm · #61 01/07/13, 02:44 AM

Quote:

I only know that i would like to make a choice, as in labeling GMO so we can let the market decide

If you don't want GMO's buy "organic" labeled food.
Everything else IS GMO, and has been for decades
The choice has always been there

CaliannG · #62 01/07/13, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerDale

Trust monsanto? I dunno, do you trust Bayer, Dow, nufarm, pioneer, dekalb, viterra, cargill, bunge, cheminova, dupont?

Oh yes, I trust them. I trust them ALL!

I trust them to do whatever it takes to increase their profits; up to and including releasing, for sale, agents, compounds, seeds, and other products which are harmful to the users and the public, because they have done so in the past, knowingly and purposefully.

I trust them, if they discover through their in house research and studies that one of their products is dangerous or harmful if used as it is intended, to do everything in their power to hide that fact until they are forced by circumstances to admit that their product is harmful and that they knew it was harmful from early on.

They have done so more than once in the past, and they have not given the public any reason to believe that they would not do so again.

And yes, Monsanto is often picked on, but that is mainly because they are the leader in GMO crops and GMO crop research...but everything said applies to the others as well.

Why are ya'll so surprised that folks don't trust the products put out by these companies; most especially new technology?

A car manufacturer comes out with a brand new, spiffy, bells-and-whistles-on-every-thing car. They tout it as the absolute best. They have tested it backwards and forwards, but they won't let any of the car review folks test it. You buy one. In 6 months it explodes and seriously injures you, and kills one of your family members. 5 years later, after numerous explosions, the company admits that they knew the cars would explode. So sorry. Here is some money.

10 years later, that manufacturer comes out with a brand new, spiffy, bells-and-whistles-on-everything truck. They tout it as the absolute best. They have tested it backwards and forwards, but they won't let any of the truck review folks test it. Your neighbor buys one. In 6 months, it explodes, killing your neighbor and injuring his wife. 5 years after that, and more explosions, the company admits that they knew the cars would explode and gives your neighbor's widow some money.

10 years later, that manufacturer comes out with a brand new, top-of-the-line airplane. they have tested it backwards and forwards, but won't let anyone else test it. Are you going to book a flight on one? Sure, the company has made other vehicles during this 20 year time span that didn't explode, but do you want to take a ride in that airplane? Would you suggest that anyone ELSE ride in that airplane?

It's not just Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, ALL of them have a track record of releasing things that were harmful, and later admitting that they KNEW they were harmful but hid it for the sake of profits. With some of those products, the company kept on selling them for DECADES after they knew that the products were dangerous and harmful.

And ya'll are jumping down the throats of anti-GMO folks because they are more than a bit suspicious that this genetically tinkered-with stuff might not be good for the public? Ya'll are saying these anti-GMO people are crazy and their suspicions and fears are without foundation?

Some of those companies have a CENTURY of proof that they don't give a ratzz --- about the long-term health and safety of the public, but ya'll are asking folks to just believe that these products are safe without long-term, independent testing?

Why? Why should you expect people to believe that, with that sort of record? Why is it wrong for folks to be fearful and suspicious of these products, considering the history of the companies that make them?

Why is it unrealistic to think that it is more than possible that *if* there ARE any dangerous and/or harmful effect to these products that the companies that make them would do everything in their power to keep the public from finding that out...and continue selling those products with full knowledge of the harm they cause? It has happened before, after all.

indypartridge · #63 01/07/13, 05:20 AM

For your consideration, here's an article (speech) made by a guy who was very active in starting the "Anti-GMO" movement in the 90's, who is now Pro-GMO. He explains what factors convinced him to switch sides in the debate:
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lec...-january-2013/

haypoint · #64 01/07/13, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indypartridge

For your consideration, here's an article (speech) made by a guy who was very active in starting the "Anti-GMO" movement in the 90's, who is now Pro-GMO. He explains what factors convinced him to switch sides in the debate:
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lec...-january-2013/

I read the speech. I think the video is more complete. Makes many interesting points. Wonder if anyone will change their minds after reading this?
If you want to re-think yor anti-GMO beliefs, there are lots of sources to challenge those beliefs in his speech.

Steve L. · #65 01/07/13, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indypartridge

For your consideration, here's an article (speech) made by a guy who was very active in starting the "Anti-GMO" movement in the 90's, who is now Pro-GMO. He explains what factors convinced him to switch sides in the debate:
http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lec...-january-2013/

Great post.
From the link above -

Quote:

Before Borlaug died in 2009 he spent many years campaigning against those who for political and ideological reasons oppose modern innovation in agriculture. To quote: “If the naysayers do manage to stop agricultural biotechnology, they might actually precipitate the famines and the crisis of global biodiversity they have been predicting for nearly 40 years.”

And, thanks to supposedly environmental campaigns spread from affluent countries, we are perilously close to this position now. Biotechnology has not been stopped, but it has been made prohibitively expensive to all but the very biggest corporations.
It now costs tens of millions to get a crop through the regulatory systems in different countries. In fact the latest figures I’ve just seen from CropLife suggest it costs $139 million to move from discovering a new crop trait to full commercialisation, so open-source or public sector biotech really does not stand a chance.

There is a depressing irony here that the anti-biotech campaigners complain about GM crops only being marketed by big corporations when this is a situation they have done more than anyone to help bring about.

Quote:

So I challenge all of you today to question your beliefs in this area and to see whether they stand up to rational examination. Always ask for evidence, as the campaigning group Sense About Science advises, and make sure you go beyond the self-referential reports of campaigning NGOs.

But most important of all, farmers should be free to choose what kind of technologies they want to adopt. If you think the old ways are the best, that’s fine. You have that right.

What you don’t have the right to do is to stand in the way of others who hope and strive for ways of doing things differently, and hopefully better. Farmers who understand the pressures of a growing population and a warming world. Who understand that yields per hectare are the most important environmental metric. And who understand that technology never stops developing, and that even the fridge and the humble potato were new and scary once.

greg273 · #66 01/07/13, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

I read the speech. I think the video is more complete. Makes many interesting points. Wonder if anyone will change their minds after reading this?
If you want to re-think yor anti-GMO beliefs, there are lots of sources to challenge those beliefs in his speech.

Do you agree with his global warming conclusions also? He's pretty well convinced that AGW is already occurring. Who knows, maybe he will change his mind on that also in a few years.

Steve L. · #67 01/07/13, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg273

Do you agree with his global warming conclusions also? He's pretty well convinced that AGW is already occurring. Who knows, maybe he will change his mind on that also in a few years.

I'm much less anti-AGW than I used to be.

rambler · #68 01/07/13, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

Oh yes, I trust them. I trust them ALL!

I trust them to do whatever it takes to increase their profits; up to and including releasing, for sale, agents, compounds, seeds, and other products which are harmful to the users and the public, because they have done so in the past, knowingly and purposefully.

I trust them, if they discover through their in house research and studies that one of their products is dangerous or harmful if used as it is intended, to do everything in their power to hide that fact until they are forced by circumstances to admit that their product is harmful and that they knew it was harmful from early on.

They have done so more than once in the past, and they have not given the public any reason to believe that they would not do so again.

And yes, Monsanto is often picked on, but that is mainly because they are the leader in GMO crops and GMO crop research...but everything said applies to the others as well.

Why are ya'll so surprised that folks don't trust the products put out by these companies; most especially new technology?

A car manufacturer comes out with a brand new, spiffy, bells-and-whistles-on-every-thing car. They tout it as the absolute best. They have tested it backwards and forwards, but they won't let any of the car review folks test it. You buy one. In 6 months it explodes and seriously injures you, and kills one of your family members. 5 years later, after numerous explosions, the company admits that they knew the cars would explode. So sorry. Here is some money.

10 years later, that manufacturer comes out with a brand new, spiffy, bells-and-whistles-on-everything truck. They tout it as the absolute best. They have tested it backwards and forwards, but they won't let any of the truck review folks test it. Your neighbor buys one. In 6 months, it explodes, killing your neighbor and injuring his wife. 5 years after that, and more explosions, the company admits that they knew the cars would explode and gives your neighbor's widow some money.

10 years later, that manufacturer comes out with a brand new, top-of-the-line airplane. they have tested it backwards and forwards, but won't let anyone else test it. Are you going to book a flight on one? Sure, the company has made other vehicles during this 20 year time span that didn't explode, but do you want to take a ride in that airplane? Would you suggest that anyone ELSE ride in that airplane?

It's not just Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, ALL of them have a track record of releasing things that were harmful, and later admitting that they KNEW they were harmful but hid it for the sake of profits. With some of those products, the company kept on selling them for DECADES after they knew that the products were dangerous and harmful.

And ya'll are jumping down the throats of anti-GMO folks because they are more than a bit suspicious that this genetically tinkered-with stuff might not be good for the public? Ya'll are saying these anti-GMO people are crazy and their suspicions and fears are without foundation?

Some of those companies have a CENTURY of proof that they don't give a ratzz --- about the long-term health and safety of the public, but ya'll are asking folks to just believe that these products are safe without long-term, independent testing?

Why? Why should you expect people to believe that, with that sort of record? Why is it wrong for folks to be fearful and suspicious of these products, considering the history of the companies that make them?

Why is it unrealistic to think that it is more than possible that *if* there ARE any dangerous and/or harmful effect to these products that the companies that make them would do everything in their power to keep the public from finding that out...and continue selling those products with full knowledge of the harm they cause? It has happened before, after all.

You said so much here. Thank you.

Anti gmo folk make this all about one company, when there are many involved. Nice of someone to say that.

Many airplanes and cars crash every year. Some people are afraid to fly, a few Amish reject motorized transportation and rubber tires.

But -most- of society, most people, accept airplanes and cars, and use them every year or month or day.

I think you summed up the anti gmo folks very well with that analogy.

Paul

haypoint · #69 01/07/13, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg273

Do you agree with his global warming conclusions also? He's pretty well convinced that AGW is already occurring. Who knows, maybe he will change his mind on that also in a few years.

It is a wonderful thing to have the internal strength to review the facts, admit your were wrong and accept the truth.
He should be commended for that.
Refusing to change your position when faced with conflicting information, is a sign of weakness.

Just before sinking in Lake Superior, the freightor Edmond Fitzgerold, crashed through huge waves. at the end of each wave, she emerged. This happened repeatedly until the last time. She never exited that wave and instead headed to the icy bottom, a few miles from Whitefish Point.

Recently, in the past hundred years, we have had warmer winters, followed by colder, average winters. More recently, we have experienced more frequent warmer winters. Followed by hotter, dryer summers. We could emerge from this warm cycle and return to more normal (Normal being the past 800 years) winters or experience a far warmer cycle that lasts hundreds of years. Like the ship, we pass through cycles, never really knowing what awaits us on the other side of that climatic wave.

Since I know that volcanic action creates more polution than mere mankind, I cannot get too concerned about man's role in climate change. Since earth has gone through several fairly recent ice ages, with warm periods in between, I would have to say our climate isn't staying the same.

The last cold summer, that I can remember was around 1985, I think. Anyway, it followed Mt. St. Helen's dust cloud. Faair to assume that the next major volcaanic eruption will result in a cooling of our climate.

Bearfootfarm · #70 01/07/13, 11:00 AM

Quote:

And ya'll are jumping down the throats of anti-GMO folks because they are more than a bit suspicious that this genetically tinkered-with stuff might not be good for the public? Ya'll are saying these anti-GMO people are crazy and their suspicions and fears are without foundation?

When all they offer as "proof" is the same old JUNK SCIENCE studies, they ARE unfounded

Bearfootfarm · #71 01/07/13, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg273

Do you agree with his global warming conclusions also? He's pretty well convinced that AGW is already occurring. Who knows, maybe he will change his mind on that also in a few years.

The planet has alternately cooled and warmed for billions of years.
That has nothing to do with this topic

Steve L. · #72 01/07/13, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

Why are ya'll so surprised that folks don't trust the products put out by these companies; most especially new technology?

A car manufacturer comes out with a brand new, spiffy, bells-and-whistles-on-every-thing car. They tout it as the absolute best. They have tested it backwards and forwards, but they won't let any of the car review folks test it...
10 years later, that manufacturer comes out with a brand new, spiffy, bells-and-whistles-on-everything truck. They tout it as the absolute best. They have tested it backwards and forwards, but they won't let any of the truck review folks test it...
10 years later, that manufacturer comes out with a brand new, top-of-the-line airplane. they have tested it backwards and forwards, but won't let anyone else test it...

Your analogy is poor. GMOs ARE being independently tested.
http://cera-gmc.org/docs/articles/09-052-005.pdf

Quote:

...Ya'll are saying these anti-GMO people are crazy and their suspicions and fears are without foundation?

I'm not calling you crazy, CaliannG, but your posts show a foundation based on the fear of the unknown.

If GMOs have been found to be harmful in some studies, I'd like to know about them. Can you point them out to me, because honestly, I can't find them! I've posted a number of sources of studies in this thread, and I've spent quite a lot of time doing it. Help me out, please.

CaliannG · #73 01/07/13, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve L.

I'm not calling you crazy, CaliannG, but your posts show a foundation based on the fear of the unknown.

~sighs~ I think you assume too much. I *understand* the issues the anti-GMO folks have with both GMO crops and GMO companies. I *understand* why people would be suspicious of both the products and the corporations that are promoting them. I get that people are worried about cross-breeding with heritage crops, creating GMO hybrids, and wiping out heritage crops. This is a real concern.

I understand that folks have these issues and concerns about GMO products. My BIL makes his living doing meta-analysis of scientific studies on different issues. There are not enough *independent* studies on GMO crops to DO a meta-analysis. Considering they have been around for decades now, there SHOULD be enough independent studies to do a meta-analysis, but there are not. I get that this fact is enough to raise more suspicions.

I *understand* the concerns people have over this. I believe that they are valid concerns. This is why I defend the anti-GMO folks from folks on here who seem to believe that they don't have a right to have ANY concerns and should just shut up about it. Their concerns are valid, they have a right to have their concerns, and people shouldn't be attempting to hush them.

That does NOT mean that I don't use GMO's myself. I have weighed the risks verses the costs. At this time, I do not have the equipment nor means to grow my own non-GMO grain and feed. Nor can I afford the prices on organic feeds. Also, I am not a spring chicken, nor do I have decades of healthy living behind me. My lifestyle choices through the years are far more likely to kill me off with some cancer or another before anything in GMO will have a chance to get me. Therefore, I buy what I need at the moment and I don't worry too much about the content.

If I had young children living at home, whose later lives would be affected by my choices, or if I had more in the way of equipment and/or means, my choices would likely be far different. If there was an option to buy Non-GMO feed that was raised by conventional farming methods (and therefore doesn't have the added cost of organic, with the lack of chemical fertilizers, etc.), I would probably do so.

But these are MY choices, and *I* have weighed the risks and costs associated with them. You will notice that I don't say a single thing against folks who have decided that GMO's are fine and right for them or their families? They have made that choice for themselves. I don't tell them that they are crazy, or that they are idiots, or that they have made their choices out of ignorance or that they are ruled by greed. I do not toss away their reasons for making the decision they have made regarding this issue as invalid, or due to some negative bias or emotion. I don't tell them that they don't have a right to speak about the reasons they have made the decision that they have made, and I do not belittle them for it.

But I DO tell folks that the people who have made a *different* decision have valid reasons for doing so, and should not be denigrated or belittled for those reasons or their decision. I attempt to point out that that their concerns are real, and that it is perfectly reasonable that they should have these concerns.

I also understand that, after the Pinto fiasco in the 70's, there are people out there that do not wish to purchase a Ford Pinto. Their reasons are also valid.

Steve L. · #74 01/07/13, 02:12 PM

Thank you for your reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

My BIL makes his living doing mega-analysis of scientific studies on different issues

I thought the term was meta-analysis. Am I wrong?

haypoint · #75 01/07/13, 02:45 PM

"I also understand that, after the Pinto fiasco in the 70's, there are people out there that do not wish to purchase a Ford Pinto. Their reasons are also valid."

One reason might be because Ford hasn't produced a Pinto for 33 years. But for the sake of discussion, let's say they continued to make them. The actual problem with the fuel tanks was an easily solved probleem. To save weight, the fuel tank did not have an additional folded piece of steel sealing the fuel tank. The tank was seam welded electricly. This prcess is common. However, this tiny economy car couldn't protect it's fuel cell. The fix was made.
So, to refuse to purchase a product after the correction was made is certianly your right, but it isn't based on logic. Ford Motor Company took steps to correct the problem.
A number of years later, Firestone had a number of tires fail, original equipment on Fords. They discovered the problem and corrected it. Should you avoid Firestone for what happened back then? Avoid original tires on new cars? Avoid Fords altogether?

This method of thinking is known as reactive. Not really effective.

"~sighs~ I think you assume too much. I *understand* the issues the anti-GMO folks have with both GMO crops and GMO companies. I *understand* why people would be suspicious of both the products and the corporations that are promoting them. I get that people are worried about cross-breeding with heritage crops, creating GMO hybrids, and wiping out heritage crops. This is a real concern."

I need you to explain to me how GMO threatens heritage crops? What heritage crops do you speak of? Since I doubt there are heritage sugar beets, canola, alfalfa, or soybeans, I will guess you are afraid heritage corn will be forever lost. There is a far greater chance that a farmer'd hibrid corn pollen will mix with someone's heritage variety of corn. There are buffer zones around GMO corn fields. Perhaps you "feel" more than you "understand". This is a real concern only as long as you haven't been shown how GMO corn is grown and the requirements involved.

I looked for gold one in my front yard. Actually I did it several times. Not a trace, nothing. Should I be unconvinced that there is no gold there because I only looked a few times? Even with a geological report on the kinds of place gold is found, should I give up?
I think when researchers were looking for differences in GMO crops and they found nothing, time and again, they might be convinced. When the structure of DNA is studied, it shows that there isn't any digestable difference between non-gmo and gmo. But you expect independent researchers should continue to dig for gold in my yard? When can they stop? It's been 20 years, how much longer?

If you are in that group rallying for another label, based only on your own feelings, you are workng to raise the cost of my food. I object to that.

CaliannG · #76 01/07/13, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve L.

Thank you for your reply.
I thought the term was meta-analysis. Am I wrong?

Yes, I meant meta-analysis. My fingers are accustomed to typing "mega" more than they are "meta", and, of course, my spell-checker didn't catch it. Thank you for mentioning it, I will edit it now.

CaliannG · #77 01/07/13, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

...a bunch of stuff that only proves that he is unwilling to to bend enough to even understand the concerns of the other side, and will continue to belittle them for even having those concerns....

Now you are getting on to me for doing my best to understand all sides of an issue...and you have decided to "prove" your point by latching on to an analogy and proving the analogy wrong? Really? Stop that. Don't be a jerk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

When can they stop? It's been 20 years, how much longer?

Captafol was in use for 41 years before it was banned. Lindane was in use for 67 years before it was banned. Aldrin was used for 30 years before it was banned.

I could go on and on about chemical compositions that were in widespread use, that are now completely banned because they will frag you up. I don't even have to mention DDT, as I have SCORES of other things that are just as harmful (some more so), that were once deemed "safe and effective", were used by everyone, and are now known to really mess things up, both people and the environment.

And in every single one of them the manufacturers knew the effects long before the public did, and hid those effects, until they were FORCED to stop producing and selling these things.

When it has been 50 years, and no harmful effects have been observed through widespread use, then it would be prudent to say "It's been long enough".

Until then, people have a right to their concerns....and a lot of ya'll are sounding suspiciously like the farmers and manufacturers that poo-poo'ed the folks who were concerned about the use of Endrin. Just a bunch of tree-huggers trying to deprive farmers of useful tools, right? Right?

Right.

Steve L. · #78 01/07/13, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

Yes, I meant meta-analysis. My fingers are accustomed to typing "mega" more than they are "meta", and, of course, my spell-checker didn't catch it. Thank you for mentioning it, I will edit it now.

Thank you. When I tried to google 'mega-analysis', I didn't get many hits, and quite frankly I've never heard the term. 'Mega-analysis' does exist however. I found this -
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/107/2/210/

Quote:

"Mega"-analysis was developed by M. Carlson and N. Miller (see record 1987-31249-001) as an extension of traditional meta-analytic procedures for conducting integrative reviews of existing research literatures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

...I understand that folks have these issues and concerns about GMO products. My BIL makes his living doing meta-analysis of scientific studies on different issues. There are not enough *independent* studies on GMO crops to DO a meta-analysis. Considering they have been around for decades now, there SHOULD be enough independent studies to do a meta-analysis, but there are not. I get that this fact is enough to raise more suspicions...

Now I really am confused. Did your BIL tell you that "There are not enough *independent* studies on GMO crops to DO a meta-analysis"?

I ask because here is the first page search results for "GMO meta analysis on Google Scholar -
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...ed=0CC0QgQMwAA

Quote:

[PDF] A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies

JL Lusk, M Jamal, L Kurlander, M Roucan… - Journal of Agricultural …, 2005 - JSTOR
A plethora of research in recent years has been devoted to estimating consumer demand for
genetically modified food, an important piece of information needed to create appropriate
public policy. To examine this body of work, a meta-analysis was conducted of 25 studies ...
Cited by 134 Related articles All 12 versions Cite More

Get it! Cornell

The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food—a meta-analysis

A Dannenberg - Ecological Economics, 2009 - Elsevier
Abstract This paper presents a meta-analysis of 51 primary studies reporting a total of 114
genetically modified food valuation estimates. Results indicate that elicitation methods and
formats used in the primary studies affect valuation estimates much more than do sample ...
Cited by 20 Related articles All 6 versions Cite More

Get it! Cornell

Effect of low-level body burdens of lead on the mental development of children: limitations of meta-analysis in a review of longitudinal data

SB Thacker, DA Hoffman, J Smith… - Archives of …, 1992 - Taylor & Francis
... tAll Gmo blood samples were capillary; up to 24 mo, approximately half the samples were capillary;
almost all subse- quent samples were ... These parameters were examined for feasibility of
meta-analysis so that the magnitude of the effect of increased blood lead levels on ...
Cited by 51 Related articles BL Direct All 5 versions Cite More

[PDF] from uni-bonn.de Get it! Cornell

Willingness to pay for traceable meat attributes: a meta-analysis

G Cicia, F Colantuoni - International Journal on Food …, 2010 - centmapress.ilb.uni-bonn.de
... animal welfare, respect for the environment, labor conditions, production technologies (GMO
presence/absence ... Another meta-analysis concerning food attributes is contained in Lusk et al. ...
This study, though, is centered on genetically modified food and considers many types of ...
Cited by 16 Related articles All 15 versions Cite

[HTML] from plos.org Get it! Cornell

[HTML] A meta-analysis of effects of Bt crops on honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

JJ Duan, M Marvier, J Huesing, G Dively, ZY Huang - PLoS One, 2008 - dx.plos.org
... Spiegel Online International. Find this article online; McDonald J (2007) Could genetically
modified crops be killing bees?. San Francisco Chronicle: F4. Arnqvist G, Wooster D (1995)
Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. ...
Cited by 74 Related articles All 33 versions Cite More

Get it! Cornell

Reprint: Good laboratory practice: preventing introduction of bias at the bench

MR Macleod, M Fisher, V O'Collins, ES Sena… - Journal of Cerebral …, 2008 - nature.com
... study design, analyses conducted by the collaborative approach to meta analysis and review ...
These considerations also apply to comparisons between groups of genetically modified animals,
and if ... LL, Howells DW, Donnan GA (2005) Systematic review and metaanalysis of the ...
Cited by 83 Related articles All 28 versions Cite More

I haven't taken the time to look at any of them, and certainly most of the 17,600 'hits' are NOT about different studies, but it looks suspiciously like somebody managed "to DO a meta-analysis".

Steve L. · #79 01/07/13, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

Quote:

Originally Posted by haypoint

...a bunch of stuff that only proves that he is unwilling to to bend enough to even understand the concerns of the other side, and will continue to belittle them for even having those concerns....

Stop that. Don't be a jerk.

I'm afraid I have to agree with her on this one, haypoint.

CaliannG · #80 01/07/13, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve L.

Now I really am confused. Did your BIL tell you that "There are not enough *independent* studies on GMO crops to DO a meta-analysis"?

I did not say that there are not enough studies out on GMO crops to do a meta-analysis; I said there are not enough *independent* studies out there to do a meta-analysis.

In other words, if you take all of the studies about GMO crops, then remove the ones that were done in-house by the manufacturers of the GMO crops....then remove all of the ones that were done in research centers partially or completely funded by the manufacturers of GMO crops....what you have left are not enough studies with which to conduct a meta-analysis.

I would like to see more independent studies on GMO crops...enough to conduct a meta-analysis using ONLY independent studies. Wouldn't it be great if those studies, and the meta-analysis, concluded that GMO crops are completely safe and harmless for both humans and the environment?