There is the truth. plus is saying critical thinking is dead. In a way I agree, simply because the presentation of facts is no longer allowed by either side of any argument. We do not have the social skills to debate anything anymore, both sides stake out positions and that's it, we go to war with every tool we can, and throw lots of money (from dubious sources usually) at the issue. I cannot trust anything anybody says, you have to go dig through a bunch of stuff to try to winnow out some conclusions, and you are never sure you have untainted facts. A lot of "1984" ish ness here.

Danno, sorry for your condition. Especially when it is the fact you can only surmise, guess and make a general statement because no one on either side simply wants to just present facts, note hype.I would say the general facts do raise the suspicion.

You are correct, one of the articles I used was a site that claimed this study:

"Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early

Wednesday, September 19, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of http://NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
Tags: GMO study, cancer tumors, organ damage
(NaturalNews) Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. That's the conclusion of a shocking new study that looked at the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto's genetically modified corn.

The study has been deemed "the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats." News of the horrifying findings is spreading like wildfire across the internet, with even the mainstream media seemingly in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors... tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.

"Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in 'shocking' new cancer study" wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication. (http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/tec......)

It reported, "Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females."

The Daily Mail reported, "Fresh row over GM foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec......)

It goes on to say: "The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."

The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs. You may find yourself thinking it is absolutely astonishing that no such studies were ever conducted before GM corn was approved for widespread use by the USDA and FDA, but such is the power of corporate lobbying and corporate greed.

The study was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and was just presented at a news conference in London.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO..."

Here is where you find the dilemma: There were objections that the variety of rat used is predisposed to develop tumors. That seems very strange, in that such a strain would then be useless for such research, which also then implies either the person doing the research was stupid, or manipulative. Can't say either way. The correct rebuttal to all of this would have been to do a follow up study, with a variety of rat known to not have any such defect (why would that variety ever be used at all?), and see if the data is the same. The wiki article is very well cited, and seems to be the opposite side of the coin from the Hill article. My real problem is I cannot believe either side of this story, in that there is such a huge influence between money, power, corporations and anti corporation groups, that each is in a propaganda war, and manipulation appears to be on both sides. Meanwhile, everyone misses the main target: Is this crap indeed safe and non toxic?

Some comment about the flawed study with corn feeding using rats which naturally produce tumors
easily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9...

I contracted Appendix Cancer. No history in my family of it and genetic testing ruled out genetics. It was aggressive. We know now the Appendix stores good bacteria to reseed the colon. I used to search out GMO foods to eat. Most likely that caused, at least partly, my condition.

Please listen to https://youtu.be/xKcjT5QK3Lg about GMO. Write to your political representatives to ban it and vote with wallet at store. Dr. Darrell Tanelian taught me about GMO and Statin dangers years ago. He is a big Ayn Rand and Tesla fan.

And I used to ask whether the GMO foods everyone is worried about eating or not eating are the foods GROWN from GMO SEEDS or is everyone worried about Eating GMO Seeds?!

I stopped asking that question because nobody seemed to be able to understand the difference between the two or what that difference might mean!

Critical Thinking is DEAD.
Just another example.

Every living thing on the planet is in a constant state of genetic modification. Who has the wisdom to determine which mod is acceptable and which is not?

+1 for inspiring old dino to think up a reason.
Campaign contributions!
Money that helps to keep conniving old farts for professional politicians in office.

I wouldnt blindly trust things companies have to say any more than I would trust what governments say. There is so much manipulation out there now- using "facts" presented to buoy up their particular position.

Here is another problem often not expressed in the GMO debate: They modified crops to not die when weed killer was applied but now that weed killer is picked up by the plants and ends up in the fruit...ie wheat, soy and corn; Then, to beat the band, the weeds adapted and became immune and flourished anyway...so the whole thing cascades; Then, to add insult to injury, these gmo resistant weeds begin to infect everything around them...and we have no idea how that will effect the environment...the beast has been let loose...all the while, your eating round up and other pesticides, the ground is now polluted, the weeds have been Frankensteined. All of this could of been avoided if one used one's Mind and used nature to do the work. There are natural plants, worms, bugs and other practices to allow the crops to flourish and the soil would be even better for it.

I think, in the near future once the farming communities realize how the climate will effect growing crops and develop and utilize hydroponic methods, indoors...away from the coming climate extremes that we will no longer need Pesticides, weed killers or GMOs...and the compartmentalized mindless creatures will shrink away in the corner and perhaps a new, mindful, integrated and moral scientific community will be born.

These GMO foods can't be all that bad.....people are living so long now that the SS system is going bust! The larger challenge is one of Obesity caused by having such an abundance of food.

For some reason that I can not explain I am of the belief the government is involved. If you can discover how deep you will understand why GMO products exist and I suppose more and more are being created. Whether they are so terrible should also be exposed if it is true.

William, "FIrst you cannot class all GMO food as a substance, it's a technique, not a object." I beg to differ, you cannot eat a technique. It is a "substance" or an "object" (if you class food as an object). My concern is a lack of faith that government or large corporations will release information the deem negative to their interests. Remember, the "rat study" at 90 days, showed no ill effects, it was the 2 year one, where they are fed nothing but that, that did. So, extrapolate how much a human would have to consume for an equal dose. Is it beyond reality? I don't know, But the questions raised, especially when talking a new technology that goes inside you, is enough to raise my hackles and tend to lean into the bad side before I take their assurances. Remember the tobacco industry said smoking was good for you in the 50's and produced numerous studies that showed no ill effects from smoking. Uh, that wasn't exactly the truth, was it. There is precedent to establish doubt of any corporations veracity, in the face of money.

While there are many "unbiased" web sites that offer the "truth" with references, such as:

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/inde...

Then there are sites that call out what The Hill reports:

http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO...

2012:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2...

Here is a good discussion on the issue with the Rat Study and why Monsanto's 90 day study was less efficacious than the 2 year study:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Trut...

Before they released this mess, there should have been short, medium and long term studies, rigorously tested and publicly available. Because of "secrecy" and concerns about "proprietary data" (and you could suspect a "give a rat" attitude) that was not done, and there is also some concern that a whole boatload of Monsanto exe's are in the FDA. Conflict of interest? I am not sure of "The Hills" propaganda roots, whether they are pro any group, but I would say that after the issues of the past ( and current ones such as the issue of bovine hormones added to dairy and meat causing early puberty and accelerated growth in girls) the unintended consequence factor is such that great care is needed when creating these things. I do not see our government, or large conglomerates as necessarily having "great care". Call me a skeptic, but that's how I see it.

I don't know about any web sites, I know that many go off the rails with little or no information about everything...these groups are never part of my research...I go for writings of the times involved and the Book I suggested is increadable in that way...It shows the science, the attitudes, the misconceptions, the history, the evidence and the illusions involved.

If someone does harm to the end users of their product or services then of course they are liable. Having an alarmist web site declare that there are dangers that are not happening in the real world is not a harm.

Genes are not just genes...your talking about something nature would never do...read the book I mentioned. It's clear they are screwed up.

What ever happened to responsibility, accountability, common sense and doing no harm to the end users of your product or services.

There are good reasons to be opposed to required labeling of GMO's. Aside from the obvious anti-GMO hysteria, there is the increasingly complex task of determining if any of the ingredients in a product qualify as GMO. If it becomes a law, then you have liability if one of your components from one of your suppliers has GMOs.

And there is no scientific reason for making the distinction. Genes are genes how they got there is less important than what they do.

You know somethings arye when they refuse to acknowledge the presents of GMO's in the products you buy.

I have been reading: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth by Steven M Drunker. He goes back to the beginning and points out the problems, misconception, attitudes and hubris inherent in the scientific community. No doubt there is fraud and coercion here.
I could be observed that much of these perversions are purposed and if one has doubt then why does it seem that every head and many employed by the FDA come from Monsanto. It also is very clear that rigorous testing has never been done, they are convinced that they are only engaging in a natural process.
Well Nature or even your fathers good eugenics of combining two different apples to get a new variety never involved, aids viruses, monkey parts, or by passing the natural barriers nature provides for each species.

At best...the creatures that engage in this process are highly compartmentalized and unaware and at worst...are engaged in depopulation which will not only endanger conscious human life but all life on this planet.

But you don't question Monsanto's vested interest in covering up the long term risks?
This is a difficult issue to understand, as a layman.
If you have expertise in this apecific area, I'd like to hear it, William.
Qui bono.

"Sponsored Content" -- who is sponsoring it and why. FIrst you cannot class all GMO food as a substance, it's a technique, not a object.

It's certainly possible to modify or breed organisms to be dangerous or to be safe and the safety has to be determined independent of the means of making the genetic change.

I'm quite skeptical of this. If GMO modified corn (which modification?) is so dangerous lots of people should be dropping dead by now.

More anti-science hype.