As with any controversial issue, there will be propaganda spread by both extreme viewpoints. The reality is most likely somewhere in between. The "suppressed study" you linked was suppressed because of faulty methods and the fact that it could not be replicated. This doesn't make it a conspiracy, its just bad science. Trust me, if there were serious issues with GMOs, the larger scientific community would be talking about it - and they're not.
The "suppressed study" you linked was suppressed because of faulty methods
Merely accusing them of "faulty methods" invalidates the results, right?
1) Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology.
Humans have been manipulating the genes of crops for millennia by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits. (A perfect example: the thousands of apple varieties.) Virtually all of our food crops have been genetically modified in some way. In that sense, GMOs are not radical at all.
Right off the bat, they're equating genetic modification with choosing good specimens, which is just plain dishonest.
The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.
In other words, the claim that there is a scientific consensus is a flat out lie. Does that speak well for GMOs?
Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing.
I havent read to all the links you posted so I wont comment on that. However, you do realise that any protein (and a number of other things) that is foreign can promote an immune response, right? That's the reason we get allergies after all. Sometimes it just happens that lymphocytes attack stuff they should not.
Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing.
I clarified that this happens all over the place and therefore is pretty much useless to determine wether GMOs are bad or not. It's just fearmongering. I could just as well go out and start blaming free range eggs for provoking allergies. The fact that a certain food is a GMO does not relate in any way to wether or not it's immunoactive.
As with any controversial issue, there will be propaganda spread by both extreme viewpoints. The reality is most likely somewhere in between. The "suppressed study" you linked was suppressed because of faulty methods and the fact that it could not be replicated. This doesn't make it a conspiracy, its just bad science. Trust me, if there were serious issues with GMOs, the larger scientific community would be talking about it - and they're not.
Common GMO claims debunked
Merely accusing them of "faulty methods" invalidates the results, right?
Right off the bat, they're equating genetic modification with choosing good specimens, which is just plain dishonest.
.. Except for the suppressed Seralini study, for example. Or quite a lot of other scientists: http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/Statement#signed-by
In other words, the claim that there is a scientific consensus is a flat out lie. Does that speak well for GMOs?
But the FDA can't be trusted: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...nd_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.html
Why would the FDA be looking out for our interests over Monsanto's, especially considering that a former Monsanto vice president is calling the shots there: http://politicalblindspot.com/former-monsanto-vice-president-running-fda/ .. ?
I'll stop here, because this should be enough for any intellectually honest person to conclude that at the very least GMOs can't be considered safe.
I havent read to all the links you posted so I wont comment on that. However, you do realise that any protein (and a number of other things) that is foreign can promote an immune response, right? That's the reason we get allergies after all. Sometimes it just happens that lymphocytes attack stuff they should not.
I'm not sure how that's related to the question of whether GMOs are bad.
Well, you quoted this
I clarified that this happens all over the place and therefore is pretty much useless to determine wether GMOs are bad or not. It's just fearmongering. I could just as well go out and start blaming free range eggs for provoking allergies. The fact that a certain food is a GMO does not relate in any way to wether or not it's immunoactive.
I've already done enough here.