Yet, here is another study done over the course of two years using soy beans, not corn, that showed no health impact whatsoever on rats. Look it over. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/09/t ... of-gm.html
I am no biologist, and doubt you are one either Josh. Are we really qualified to judge the scientific merits of these studies?
The study you point out is from 2008 and it claims "These results indicate that long-term intake of GM soybeans at the level of 30% in diet has no apparent adverse effect in rats."
There's been a new generation of GM crops, more aggressively developed on such main staple plants such as those with increased vitamin levels ever since, from what I understand.
Also, we know for a fact, that Monsanto demands to supervise the test environment in which their GM seeds tests are performed, this is prerequisite if they are to release their GM seeds for any given "independent" lab study. So the study you provided, chances are, was no exception to this prerequisite, whether it was transgenic soy beans or corn. We also know for a fact that, 90% of US soy bean and 70% of US corn crops contain the 'Round Up - ready' transgenic gene. Thus, it is safe to infer that the French study is the first, most thorough (across several biochemical spectrums), truly independent (they admittedly had to wait, to be able to procure the Monsanto's transgenic corn by other means, for the reason explained above) and most current long term study of its kind, done on both Monsanto's GM corn and the Round-Up herbicide, separately and combined. And the results are appalling in both cases.
To be very clear, we're not talking about us humans, insects or weather, as agents of selection playing into the process of seed/plants evolution that began over 2.8 million years ago. Or the way we have been modifying wild animals by the same processes of selective breeding, so that we have produced the Chi-Hua-Hua from the wolf lineage, per say. There is a difference between breeding a trait over a certain amount of years and producing it in a lab.
What we're talking about here is the manipulation of the genome, at the bio-molecular level if you will, by forcing genes of one species into the DNA of other species that would've never normally and naturally mated otherwise. The complete swapping of genes between normal species barriers, creating new organisms which are not part of the evolutionary process. I don't know about you, but to me sounds like creating what some have called, and justly so: "Franken-Foods". And you're right, I'm not a bio-scientist and neither are you, but it takes just common sense to realize that this senseless artificial disruption (violation) of the natural processes of genes, genomes and DNAs leave the door wide open to all kinds of unknown side effects, inflammations and mutations of the natural ways of expression of such violated living organisms, be it plant or animals. Mutations which dangers are yet to be fathomed, even more so when there's very little data of what the effects of introducing foreign DNA into a food crop will be on our health.
In light of all that, I don't know about you but I, at the very least, would like to have these GM foods labeled, the way it's supposed to be, so informed people can have a choice.
And what about Monsanto and FDA corrupt reputation history in the matter, as proven in the case of the "Landmark Lawsuit Challenges FDA Policy on Genetically Engineered Foods"
, when it forced to disclose 44,000 secret internal memos into the public domain which show how the FDA since 1992 repeatedly claimed an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that GM foods were safe, while the overwhelming consensus within their own FDA staff showed the exact opposite, that these foods were not safe.
Now, it's been reported that a Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
And of course, it would be nice to think the FDA can be trusted with these matters, but think again. Monsanto has succeeded in insuring that government regulatory agencies let Monsanto do as it wishes. In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto. Ah, you've got to love that revolving door!
Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.
The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.
The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.
The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.
The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board)
Money and power corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.