published an article titled "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health"It appears that GMO's are not as safe as advertised. At a minimum they should stop being used immediately, and longer studies need to be conducted. From the abstract:"Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded."Sam
Those interested might also want to read this:http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_i...
I guess I should include the link in my post:http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm Sam
The link to the original data is always useful ... but in this case, one of the interesting parts is the amount of pushback.
I wouldn't read too much into that "pushback". Lack of dissent is EXTREMELY rare in scientific circles. If you can't find a ton of people willing to contradict you, then you've said nothing of interest. I'd read more into the fact that it's been relegated to a backwater journal. Well constructed studies with interesting results rarely end up in obscure journals.
Well, it is certainly true that any piece of science is likely to be disputed these days, but the push back can come from a variety of sources ... either not credible at all or quite credible. My quick impressionmis that the pushback is coming from the latter in this case.
I would disagree. The food industry is similar to the financial industry in that anything considered mainstream is immediately suspect because of enormous conflicts of interest between doctors, scientists, various companies and government. Look up scientists/doctors ghost writing peer reviews for example. I think there are plenty of well constructed studies with interesting results published in "obscure" journals. The hard part is determining who is genuinely interested in reporting the truth (both journals and scientists). Out of all the journals in their specific area they were rated #34 of 1,585. Maybe obscure to us non-scientists but a respectable rating none the less.http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=1100&categ... Sam
Further clarification: #34 in 2007. #64 in 2011.http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=0&area... Sam
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |