Genetically modified food has all the ingredients to scare the pants off us: Chemicals! Technology! Big ag! The uncertainty of modern development! Like it or not most of what we eat in the U.S. has been touched (or tainted depending on your viewpoint) by genetic engineering. Especially when it comes to corn. As much as 88 percent of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. But is that as bad as anti-GMO activists make it out to be?Over at Slate Jon Entine has a scathing critique of Elle magazine's nail-biting feature on genetically modified corn (categorized in the hair and beauty section because uh sickness makes you ugly?) in which writer Caitlin Shetterly explores a diagnosis that her years of sickness were the result of an allergy to genetically modified corn. The problem Entine points out is that the science to back up that claim just doesn't exist. There has not been one study that links the genetically engineered corn or any approved genetically modified food on the market to allergies one of his sources plant geneticist Pamela Ronald told him. I quickly discovered that blaming GMO foods for any kind of health problem is controversial in the medical and biotech worlds Shetterly wrote in her piece though her piece does little to explain why beyond the notion that powerful agricultural corporations like Monsanto are preventing research into unknown allergens that might arise from genetic engineering. Entine goes on: He also reached out to many of the scientists interviewed in Shetterly's piece who claimed the piece mischaracterized their statements. Food scientist Richard Goodman for example told Entine The risks from GM foods are infinitesimally small though no such viewpoints made it into Elle's pages. It's all 'what if what if what if' doomsday scenarios. It's like worrying that we might be hit by an asteroid.While there's certainly a complex story to be told on the subject of GMOs Elle seems to have passed right by it into conspiracy theory territory. The full takedown is worth a read. The original feature is here. Guys Wake UpGMOs can definitely cause harmful side-effects because they are engineered to produce their own pesticides. Did you happen to notice how all the bees are dieing? We eat those pesticides as well. Health side effects have definitely occurred and will into the future. Monsanto is a multi-billion dollar corporation. It's massive. They have the pockets to spread their garbage and destroy our health with their copyright seeds. FYI if a seed is blown onto your farm by the wind and it grows they sue you. They're nuts. The government is aware but senators have been bought out. They just passed a silent bill that states companies like Monsanto cannot be sued or stopped if the genetically modified food causes harmful side effects. Why would they do that?! They paid congress $7500000 to pass it. It worked.Read below:
Officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns. As the Washington Times points out the provision s success is viewed by many as a victory by companies like Syngenta Corp Cargill Monsanto and affiliated PACs that have donated $7.5 million to members of Congress since 2009 and $372000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.Read more here - rt.com/usa/monsanto-congress-silently-slips-830/Popsci do you're homework.Sincerely - Joe
www.joesid.comNOTICE - This slate writer was found to have been a Monsanto consultant and writer. Also note the FAO APHIS and FDA all acknowledge the risks involved with GMO's. Their adverse affects on environment have been shown and that is why they are strictly controlled. Their affects on humans are admitted by the FDA to probably not being known for many years to come.GMO's certainly have their place in the world but careless actions with them and legal barriers like the ones put in place by Monsanto are dangerous practices.Joe GMO crops don't produce their own pesticide rather they are resistant to (i.e. they don't die from) pest and herbicides that are sprayed on them.  Tomatoes TomAHtoes I guess since the pesticides make it onto the crops anyway.  Regardless I'm neither for or against GMO crops what I'm against is what you stated in the latter part of your post; namely the bullying of small farmers by large agro companies like monsanto.  The cross-pollination bit is the perhaps the most disturbing thing but I head somewhere that recently they prohibited agro companies from suing farmers that accidentally grow GMO crops that got there by cross pollinationAlso the article says that theres nothing thats been published to support the notion of any health detriments (or benefits) from GMO crops.....ok but how many studies have been done at all? I could be wrong but I'm guessing that it isnt that many Its one thing to call someone a moron because their claims are disproven by multiple studies.Its another thing to call someone a moron because there arent any studies to support their claims.The whole thing brings to mind big tobacco during the 50s and 60s; everyone knew that smoking was bad for you but the tobacco companies kept on saying that there weren't any studies to support those claims....well there weren't too many studies period and when the independent studies were finally done guess what?  Not saying this is the case with GMO crops but large agro can't make a claim of safety until independent studies have been conducted.  And the burden of proof is on them....@Moose2823 - Im sorry but they do produce pesticides. Not only are they tolerant of pesticides/herbicides they also produce pesticides themselves through the use of fungus and bacteria to deliver the genes into the corn so that it can produce Delta Endotoxin.
Read below:University of Kentucky study on GMOs:Bt Delta Endotoxin -
The Bt delta endotoxin was selected because it is highly effective at controlling Lepidoptera larvae caterpillars. It is during the larval stage when most of the damage by European corn borer occurs. The protein is very selective generally not harming insects in other orders (such as beetles flies bees and wasps). For this reason GMOs that have the Bt gene are compatible with biological control programs because they harm insect predators and parasitoids much less than broad-spectrum insecticides. The Bt endotoxin is considered safe for humans other mammals fish birds and the environment because of its selectivity. Bt has been available as a commercial microbial insecticide since the 1960s and is sold under many trade names. These products have an excellent safety record and can be used on many crops until the day of harvest.Bt-corn is a type of genetically modified organism termed GMO. A GMO is a plant or animal that has been genetically modified through the addition of a small amount of genetic material from other organisms through molecular techniques. Currently the GMOs on the market today have been given genetic traits to provide protection from pests tolerance to pesticides or improve its quality. Examples of GMO field crops include Bt-potatoes Bt-corn Bt-sweet corn Roundup Ready soybeans Roundup Ready Corn and Liberty Link corn.www2.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.aspSincerely - Joe
www.joesid.comUnfortunately nature is winning. The majority of GMO plants are made to resist you know who's herbicide. The local plants are now growing immune to the herbicide. II doubt this massive experiment will prove any better than lead paint or asbestos.Contrary to what poor old misguided Joe up there says there have been over 600 studies published over a 30 year period in numerous respected scientific journals by various experts in the relevant field in good standing.The scientific consensus is that all GMO products currently on the market are as safe or in many cases safer than conventionally grown food.Also contrary to popular belief organic food is in many ways worse for your health your wallet the environment and humanity at large.Further reading on those studies mentioned :
www.gmopundit.blogspot.ca/p/450-published-safety-assessments.htmlA useful article about pros cons and (mis)conceptions of GMOsnattusays.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/the-genetics-and-politics-of-genetically-modified-foods/Good article natarajanganesan.  Did you write that?  And thank you Empmortakaten for pointing out that there is greater public health risk from so-called organic foods than from GMO foods.It is telling that so many anti-GMO acolytes focus on the money trail that they imagine leads to promoters or defenders of GMO crops.  They rarely provide studies of GMO foods that show measurable harm (because there aren't any) and when they do they misrepresent the conclusions by proclaiming more harm than the studies actually indicate.Like it or not GMO foods are here to stay and all the studies so far show that they are just as safe as non-GMO foods.Empmortakaten you're information source is this:
www.axismundionline.com/blog/the-new-is-gm-food-safe-meme/www.axismundionline.com : Rave RockStep Party Madness with added Science I think you've been Rave RockStepping to some really bad sources during your Party MadnessThis is not a news source... it's a blog. For ravers... I'm 30 so I think I'm over raving. Guess I'm old now lol. This is a Photoshop image from the memes that are being passed around on the internet. Most of those studies mentioned were no more than 90 day case studies. Just because it doesn't kill you in the first 90 days doesn't mean you won't pay for it later. Say 10 to 20 years later. Many of those other 600 studies were conducted by seed dispensaries. They sell the seeds so you can see why that would be beneficial to say they're safe. None of the studies were long-term and none can tell you if the modified gene can have complications 1000x generations down the line. Why would the government pass a bill to protect Monsanto if they caused harmful effects? If the scientists think their safe why even make the bill? Why protect yourself if you don't have anything to fear? The reason why they protected themselves is because they know that somewhere down the line this will prove to have long term health effects.
But I'm sure they spent the $7500000 because its 100% safe. Sarcasm.Sincerely - Joehttp://www.joesid.comSo TANGSTEN point us to a study not tainted by seed dispensary money that shows that GMO foods are measurably more dangerous than non-GMO foods.  I say measurably because if the study indicates that there's a 5% greater chance you'll have an allergic reaction if you happen to be a lab rat bred with a specific hypersensitivity to certain food or pesticide allergies that falls within the margin of error or uncertainty.laurenra7 It would be my pleasure to enlighten you and the rest of public. Thank you for asking. Here's just one of them. There are many more... Only if you ask. I suggest to just Google it.Caen University - The study published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology found that rats fed on a diet of 33 per cent NK603 corn and others exposed to Roundup the weedkiller used with it developed tumours liver damage and digestive problems.www.english.rfi.fr/americas/20120920-monsanto-gm-maize-may-face-europe-ban-after-french-study-links-cancerSincerely - Joewww.joesid.comPoor rats... Oh wait we ate that last night?
Google: NK603 cornI don't want to come off as rude or arrogant. I really just want everyone to know about this. Believe it or not I actually care about your health laurenra7 and Empmortakaten.www.businessinsider.com/monsantos-roundup-and-resistant-corn-found-to-be-toxic-2012-9Sincerely - Joewww.joesid.comTANGSTEN thank you for the link.  The study cited in the article was a 2-year toxicology study of rats fed Monsanto's Roundup-resistant NK103 maize (corn) and the herbicide Roundup.  The author of the study is Gilles-Eric Séralini a notable critic of GMO crops.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637Here is a summary of Séralini's work and the reaction and widespread criticism of it in the scientific community:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affairSoon after the study was published in September of last year six French national academies of science issued a joint statement condemned the study a highly unusual event in French science.  They dismissed the study as a scientific non-event.  Why?It turns out that the Sprague-Dawley rats in the study have a lifespan of about 2 years and have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan under normal conditions.  One study shows over 80% of males and 70% of females get cancer during their lifetimes.In other words Séralini is accused of scientific malpractice for not including a high enough sample of rats in the study to control for naturally occurring tumors and cancers.Next study TANGSTEN?TANGSTEN you may have missed the comment at the top of the article in the second link you provided:www.businessinsider.com/monsantos-roundup-and-resistant-corn-found-to-be-toxic-2012-9It says:UPDATE [October 23]: Six French Science Academies Dismiss Study Finding GM Corn Harmed RatsHere is the link attached to the comment:http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/six-french-science-academies-dismiss-study-finding-gm-corn-harmed-rats/?_r=0In fact “medical” “science” has an horrendous record.  The AMA and the FDA both approved toxins from thalidomide to fen phen Baycol Rezulin Bextra Vioxx Celebrex and innumerably many others into use.  “Science” itself was unable or unwilling to accept the evidence that there were no banned weapons systems in Iraq or to expose the “Nayirah” fraud.  In the 1800's the AMA went so far as to threaten to revoke the license of any doctor who washed their hands.  “Researchers” were commissioned by crooked legislators to fabricate a fraudulent but convincing looking “experiment” that “proved” that cell phone use caused accidents.  And neither the AMA nor “science” in general warned about radium in clock and watch dials.  If asked they will say that they did not have the kind of understanding of the nature of the cell that would indicate that radiation could harm them.  Essentially they would claim not knowing what to look for and so not finding it.  Now though we are required to believe that they do have a complete understanding of cells so we known what to look for.
     The article in fact displays the connivery very well.  “The science to back up that claim just doesn't exist.”  Just like a century ago “scientific” evidence of radiation harming cells didn't exist either!  “There has not been one study that links the genetically engineered corn or any approved genetically modified food on the market to allergies.”  Just like the criminally fraudulent “study” on cell phones did find that they did cause accidents.  It depends on how you define the “experiment” what you will accept as data what levels of uncertainty you will use how you define terms.  And note the insistence on fixating only on allergies leaving it to the gullible to extend that to every possible problem!
     Just because “no documented case of any health problem in humans” has been “linked to” genetically modified food doesn't mean there isn't a connection it only means that the bribed crooks who call themselves “scientists” did not say there was a connection!  They never published information on a connection between radium and sickness until long afterward.  The environmental enslavement prospects the New World Order envisions with genetically modified food is greater than that with radium so it's likely there will be a much longer period until the crooks today willingly reveal the lies being spread if ever.julianpenrod you make some good points about bias in science and preconceived notions however there's a flaw in your reasoning.  Specific drugs that were found to cause harm and were subsequently banned did not trigger a blanket ban on ALL of the same kind of medication.  For example while thalidomide was banned there was never a blanket ban on all anti-nausea medication.  (And the FDA never approved its use in the U.S. at any time during the 5 years it was available.)It is possible that specific GMO foods in the future--ones not studied and certified yet--may turn out to be more harmful than their non-GMO counterparts.  However the ones that have been certified so far have undergone pretty extensive testing and found to be at least as safe for consumptions as non-GMO foods.  Environmental concerns remain to be more fully tested perhaps but so far so good.Also to address your misconception about chemical weapons in Iraq.  They WERE there at one time.  Saddam Hussein used them during the 1980's against Iranian and Kurdish civilians.  This is well documented.  That he subsequently abandoned them was not known and Hussein stonewalled and resisted every effort by the U.N. to determine their status.  We now know it was likely he was cagey about their existence because he didn't want to reveal his weakness to Iran in order to maintain at least the illusion of a credible threat to prevent an incursion by Iran.  We didn't know any of that in 2003.  What we did know is that he had them at one time he had used them he was emboldened by Al Qaeda's successful attack on America in 2001 and he had developed connections with Al Qaeda.  That presented the possibility that those chemical and biological weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists; a possible threat that was neutralized by our removing Hussein from power (which by the way very few Iraqis were sad about).lauranra7 Thank you for showing this information. I've read these articles before and they all said the same thing. (Thank you for highlighting this.) After proposing the use of rats in long-term experiments it exposed that Monsanto and every other case study did not do a long-term study. The case studies were all based on 90-day case trials. Why? Because they all use rats. The very rat that is in question in Séralini's work. How can anyone claim that the food is safe if you only test it for 90 days? The rats they used in the test are used in every lab experiment across the country. They are the most common lab rat in use today and are accepted by EFSA - European Food Safety Authority. It's because of this rat dilemma they have highlighted another study that used a different animal for 5 years. Pigs! In this study they found major health issues to the pigs' uteri and stomach. That's one of the very few long term experiments conducted and the case has been highlighted because of the use of rats. The Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat strain that Séralini used is also used in long-term 2-year toxicity and carcinogenicity studies by industry and academic scientists as well as in 90-day studies on GMOs. If this was the wrong type of rat for Séralini to use it was the wrong rat in all these other studies and market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were authorized on the basis of these studies should be revoked.Now to the pigs:Conclusion
Pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs fed a comparable non-GMO diet. Given the widespread use of GMO feed for livestock as well as humans this is a cause for concern. The results indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for human food and animal feed including stacked GM crops to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs and these GM crops are widely consumed by people particularly in the USA so it would be be prudent to determine if the findings of this study are applicable to humans.www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2291/new-peer-reviewed-study-on-gmo-pig-feed-reveals-adverse-effectsThe case study:
www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdfSincerely - Joe
www.joesid.comAll of these arguments will be irrelevant when billions of you are hanging GMO algae food sustenance bags off the sides of your houses and nailing them to your rooftops. Just add a few beef genes here and there another bag full of bread genes. Coffee-sized machines 3d-print algae foodstuffs-precursor so we can handle the texture-hurdle. z = \textstyle-\frac{3}{4} + i\epsilonHi JoeCan you cite one case in which a farmer was sued when his fields were contaminated by a neighbor's GMO crop?I'll wait.JRS ONE I didn't want to keep you waiting.
The USDA has issued a notice to all farmers that they need to buy insurance in order to avoid being sued by corporations like Monsanto in case of accidental seed distribution. They made the law because about 11 farmers a year get sued for this reason in the United States. There's no need to point at one case since Monsanto won every case. You can't beat someone in court if you can't out spend him. Hence why 5000000 farmers are suing them right now for that reason.FYI - It is impossible to stop cross pollination.Committee Charge from the Office of the Secretary
The AC21 has been charged by the Office of the Secretary with addressing the following questions:
1. What types of compensation mechanisms if any would be appropriate to address economic losses by farmers in which the value of their crops is reduced by unintended presence of genetically engineered(GE) material(s)?Here is the USDA documentation:
http://www.usda.gov/documents/ac21_report-enhancing-coexistence.pdfThey sue people for cross pollination and win by out spending them -Many of these farmers have had to pay a settlement to the corporation even when their fields were accidentally contaminated with GM seeds from a neighboring farm. Monsanto simply outspends the defendants dedicating $10 million a year and 75 staffers for the sole purpose of investigating and prosecuting farmers. Farmers who have sued Monsanto back have been soundly defeated.More sources on this documentation:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/21/1224761/farmers-insurance-sued-by-corporations/Monsanto claims not to sue farmers who have been cross pollinated by their neighbor's crops but every year they sue and are paid when that trace amount becomes questionable. They claim they don't because they care about the farmer but I think most people are beginning to realize that's a lie. They claims the following on their website.Monsanto website states this:Can a farmer be sued when a small amount of GM crop seed blows into a neighbor s fields? Do you sue this farmer? Does he or she have to prove he or she is innocent?It has never been nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented traits are present in farmers  fields as a result of inadvertent means. We have no motivation to conduct business in this manner nor have we ever attempted to conduct business in this manner -- and we surely would not prevail in the courts if we did.If a suspected instance of a farmer violating our technology agreements or patent rights is reported to us we do not automatically assume a farmer has intentionally acted in an unethical or criminal manner. The burden of proof is not on the farmer. Instead the burden of proof is on Monsanto to investigate the legitimacy of these claims and to resolve the issue as quickly and fairly as possible which usually does not lead to litigation.Sincerely - Joewww.joesid.comEven with Monsanto's disturbing sphere of influence both inside and outside government it is still surprising to see such disbelief that GMO's negatively impact health. Sad that so many think it isn't even up for contention as if the results are in. What a credit to Monsanto's propaganda.Thank you Tangsten for exposing the raving origins of what was being offered as further reading that cracked me up. It's refreshing to see such skepticism and investigation of sources.A study was recently published examining adverse effects of Bacillus thuringensis (aka the Bt toxin) that Monsanto builds into their corn and soy. Dr. Mezzomo led the study in concert with the Department of Genetics and Morphology and the Institute of Biological Sciences at University of Brasilia and it was published in the Journal of Hematology and Thromboembolic Diseases.http://gmoevidencecom/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JHTD-1-104.pdfProfessor Joe Cummins (Professor Emeritus of Genetics
University of Western Ontario) concurs and he's kind of an expert. http://wwwi-sis.org.uk/Bt-toxin.phpIt is no coincidence that Monsanto has so much money invested in our politicians and against measures such as California's Prop 37. Why else would Monsanto help raise $45 million to prevent a bill requiring them and other companies to label GMO's on their products? What are they afraid of?Entine got it wrong in so many ways. Here's the documented from just one GMO crop.First Long Term Study Released on Pigs Cattle Who Eat GMO Soy and Corn Offers Frightening Results
www.nationofchange.org/first-long-term-study-released-pigs-cattle-who-eat-gmo-soy-and-corn-offers-frightening-results-13723Stunning Corn Comparison: GMO versus NON GMO
www.momsacrossamerica.com
stunning_corn_comparison_gmo_versus_non_gmoKnown to Kill Cows Castrate Wildlife Induce Spontaneous Abortion in Lab Rats... And it's Likely in Your Water
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/19/gmo-corn-resulting-livestock-deaths.aspx?e_cid=20120719_DNL_artNew_24 More Damning Studies on GMO Corn:
	1.	A 2008 long-term study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety looked at how Monsanto s genetically modified corn currently eaten and sold in the world today affects the fertility of mice. The mice which were fed the GMO corn had significantly lower fertility rates than the mice fed natural non-GMO corn. Disturbingly this declining ability to have babies continued down through future mouse generations as well.�  � � � 
	2.	A comparative analysis published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences examined the health effects of three different varieties of Monsanto-developed GMO corn on mice. While the specific effects differed depending upon the variety of GMO corn that was eaten the dose that was consumed and the sex of the mammal all three varieties of GMO corn caused damage to the animals  major detoxifying organs namely the liver and the kidneys. Other effects were also found in the heart adrenal glands spleen bone marrow lymph nodes and other blood-making organs�all of which are signs of severe toxicity.
	3.	This past year Food Chemical Toxicology published the results of a two-year study conducted by scientists at the University of Caen Institute of Biology in France looking at the effects of genetically modified corn. The research showed that in both male and female rats the death rates for the animals fed GMO corn was two to three times higher than the animals eating non-GMO corn. The GMO-fed mice were also four times more likely to develop tumors. GMO-eating females developed more mammary tumors as well as pituitary gland and hormonal abnormalities. GMO-eating males developed significantly more cases of liver damage liver failure and severe kidney malfunctions.	4.	Profit Pro a crop analysis and management company recently released a report that showed staggering nutritional deficiencies in GMO corn when compared to non-GMO corn. For example while average non-GMO corn contains 6130 ppm of calcium GMO corn contains 14 ppm four-hundred-and-thirty-seven times less than the original vegetable. Non-GMO corn contains 113 ppm of magnesium and GMO corn contains 2 ppm which is fifty-six times less. Non-GMO corn contains 14 ppm of manganese while GMO corn contains 2 ppm. Deficiencies in these vital nutrients are associated with increased rates of osteoporosis cancer and other diseases.	Monsanto s GMO corn is engineered to be immune to glyphosate-based weed-killers such as Monsanto s trademarked Roundup�® herbicide used on crops and fields nation-wide. This saves farmers the trouble of having to till their soil and de-weed their fields first allowing them to bathe their lands with abundant amounts of glyphosate herbicides in the presence of corn without concern that their corn crops will be killed. However this also means that modern corn is laced with extensive glyphosate residues that we eat on a regular basis. Research shows that regular long-term intake of glyphosate is linked to increased risks of gastrointestinal disorders obesity diabetes heart disease depression autism infertility cancer and Alzheimer s disease. � � � 
	The glyphosate-resistance of GMO corn has encouraged such an over-abundance of glyphosate-based herbicides to be dumped into the environment worldwide that nature has started to respond in kind with the evolution of “superweeds.” A report published by the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources found at least nine species of weeds that have naturally evolved to withstand glyphosate weed-killers. Other studies are beginning to discover certain insects that are adapting to GMO corn s inherent insecticide abilities. As nature starts to catch up to our laboratory antics the agricultural and economic advantages of GMO corn are starting to become obsolete and are forcing farmers to dump even more varieties of toxic chemical herbicides and pesticides on our foods in order to stay ahead of nature s race.
	GMO corn contains an extremely high level of formaldehyde a chemical linked to adverse health effects and various forms of cancer. While one study found that 0.97 ppm of formaldehyde is toxic to mammals GMO corn was found to contain 200 times that amount.these comments... just lol....to sides arguing whos right - pro and  anti gmo people.And both are blind to the opposite side facts.Its the same problem as the political views - you grow to favor one (or even religion) if you were exposed to it since ur birth and you are physically uncapeable to accept the opposite.GMO  foods got sideeffects - if they arent carefully  made and tested yet they can also be healthy and better if doen right.Organic foods can often be way more dangerous - but who cares right.. as long as its not gmo.How do you expect to feed 7 billion people (with soo many starving already) with natural expensive and organic foods?You may have the money and luxury to not eat the chemicals and GMO foods - but if you have to choose inbetween GMO food and starvation for a month - there is nothing to choose.If yo uare soooo against GMO - then please find a better alternative.Laurenra7 I hope you come back to discuss what tangsten posted about the long-term studies. It does seem to be damning. But you had some backup to his previous claims. Although you are arguing with each oTher and probably are annoyed by each other I appreciate the effort you are both putting into this argument.They are already working on better solutions than GMO foods.  3-D printers can now print food that provides everything you need to survive.  The only reason this hasn't completely solved our food problem already is that the technology is fairly new and isn't streamlined for efficiency and cost yet. Here is an article from times magazine:http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/05/24/nasa-funded-3d-food-printer-could-it-end-world-hunger/Here is an article from Popsci detailing the same thing:http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-05/nasa-funding-3-d-printer-thatll-make-pizzaI can't speak to taste or texture ( it certainly does not look very appetizing.  Versus the choice of malnutrition or weird food its easy to choose weird food.There is a second but even more weird alternative that I think still has the potential to reduce the pressure of world hunger.  It is called soylent.  Here are a few articles that were on posci not to long ago.http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-06/how-i-survived-week-without-foodhttp://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/could-liquid-replace-foodAgain not sure I would consider this for my self  but both options seem to have a lot of potential.Joe thanks for your t