Now for the obvious

Why only fed corn? Why not add other foods which are essential to life? Corn is also a heavy starch... no one should eat only corn.

These tests are so funny when so obviously biased.

Like a sugar only diet.

As for testing... one place I pick up from the paperwork is processed in a small building that doubles as their food testing lab. They deal in corn and that's what they do.

Btw if your so paranoid eat only these types: http://www.gmushrooms.com/Posters/IndianCornBlk.jpg

acorns are toxic if you don't boil them first

same things with beans

"For each type of GM maize, only two feeding doses were tested per sex. This consisted of either 11 or 33% GM maize in an otherwise equivalent equilibrated diet; that is when the diet contained only 11% GM maize, the difference was made up by adding 22% non-GM maize (varieties not indicated)."

Good job, Einstein. You've clearly refuted the study, even though you have no knowledge of what's in its abstract. "Why only fed corn?" you ask? They weren't. Thank you for your valuable input.

[Non GM] Corn is not naturally toxic to humans nor rats, The Yell. If you're getting at something, please advise.

Non GM corn does not cause these effects in rats. GM corn does. This is strong evidence that the GM corn--which includes new toxic chemicals not present in non-GM corn--harms mamals in ways that non GM corn does not. There is no parallel between acorns and beans.

The presence of toxicity in raw GMO foodstuffs which is not in non-GMO foodstuffs is conclusively a problem. Some amount of these chemicals will always remain after cooking--healthy food is processed less. And many foods--again, healthy foods especially--are consumed raw. This study shows some of the horrible things these toxins cause in mammals.

>Can you eat chocolate safely?
>Can your dog?

are you saying corn is naturally dangerous to mice now?

I know i shouldn't comment without fully reading the actual post, but...

"Feed corn, wheat, carrots, and other food to them in a same test."

Good to see that Flint knows science

The Yell,

"How do you know?"

Because tests on the rats showed toxicity in the GMO groups which was not present in the control groups.

"Oh yeah?  Well I conclude differently! That's conclusive!!"

The study shows both an increase in toxicity and a very significant increase in tumors, organ failure, and premature death. While it's not a study on humans and thus it is obviously not absolute proof of harm to humans, it is a study on mammals and it clearly shows both increased toxicity and harm to them. It's evidence, since rats are not entirely dissimilar to humans physiologically, that there's a significant likelihood that our bodies respond similarly to the same toxic chemicals.

There's certainly no evidence that these chemicals are not harmful to humans, and this study offers only contrary evidence to that null hypothesis.

"And you may well poop it all out.  That's only a problem if you blow it out at 10mph"

The rats didn't. They got tumors, their organs failed, and they died early. Again, while it's obviously not a study on humans and cannot claim to be "proof" of anything as far as humans are concerned, it is evidence pointing toward likely similar responses in the human body to these toxins.

"Can you eat chocolate safely?
Can your dog?
Conclusive evidence your dog is extraterrestrial!"

Animal studies--specifically, with certain mammals--are done all the time with all kinds of products because of the similarities they do have to humans. That humans and dogs do not share a harmful response to chocolate in no way negates the usefulness of these studies. Statistically, toxins which harm other mammals also harm humans a vast majority of the time.

Einstein,

You raise another excellent point. If faulty studies concerning DDT were conducted decades ago, clearly all academic research since has no validity. Thank you, again, for your valuable input.

Why do you keep responding when each response reveals that you haven't read the abstract and know nothing about the study? How can you have comments on something you choose to know nothing about? What's the point of sharing such random--and consistently baseless--conjecture?

We're talking about a minority, as low as 11%, of their diet being these GMOs. And we're talking about very statistically different results from the control group. Do you have absolutely no understanding of what these numbers mean? Do you have absolutely no understanding of what a control group is, and how this protects from such faulty science as you reference?

They didn't stuff rats full of unvaried (unhealthy) diets and act surprised at negative health results. They included GMOs as a minority (two different doses) of their diets and saw very significant differences between the GMO rats and non-GMO control group rats. The non-GMO control group rats ate corn as the same portion of their diet, ruling out your baseless theory that 33% corn diets result in these ailments regardless of GMOs. If your hypothesis were correct, the control group would have exhibited the same symptoms. The GMO rats and control rats ate the same portion of corn in their diets, and the GMO rats had major problems that the non-GMO rats didn't.

Is this science and logic completely lost on you? Your hypothesis is completely blown out of the water very obviously by this study's methodology, yet here you posted a second time conjecture which is completely ruled out by the study. Is it possible that humans are not remotely harmed by these toxins which majorly mess up rats? Sure, it's possible. Is it possible that anything you've suggested in this thread might be true? No. All of your conjecture has been ruled out by the facts.

And you go on to pointlessly ramble about sugar and other food. Maybe discussions remotely related to food just aren't your strong suite.

Kemp: Shh, Flint knows science! Therefore you are wrong, even with your pesky facts and logic.... Don't you know anything? These thing mean nothing to Science! So sayth Flint....

The Yell,

"Exposure to this "carcinogen" would occur as often as people eat corn in anything.
There should be a significant spike in cancer rates in the United States compared to countries that don't eat as much corn.
There isn't one."

We ship this crap all over the place. It's grown all over the place. We do have very high cancer rates, because of a multitude of factors of unhealthy living in our society. Obviously we don't expect to see an easily noticeable trend because of one contributing factor which is consumed at varied rates among different people.

"No it is not evidence, it raises a hypothesis."

It's evidence of toxicity of these GMOs to mammals. We are mammals. While it is possible that these toxic GMOs harm rats and not humans, they would be the exception, not the rule. Most things toxic to one mammal are toxic to most/all others.

Seeing as humans have much longer lives, exposed to carcinogens and lifestyle choices which impact cancer rates orders of magnitude more than rats are exposed to such variables, apparently the only "evidence" you'd accept is a 50+ year human study in which people were enslaved in order to standardize all variables? You're setting an impossible standard to even accept information as "evidence." Presumably, then, since you're taking the position that nothing is ever knowable, there's no reason for us to muse over evidence here.

Altruist,

I've seen other Russian studies with similar findings in mice. They found high rates of infertility after just a few generations, which this study didn't look for.

The wealthy don't eat this stuff. They even import soil from overseas to grow organic produce because of all the chemicals they put in the air which fall to the soil here.

People do knowingly eat this stuff, they're just not very knowing about its existence or what it is. Corporate interests don't want them to know about it. That's why companies in California fought the legislation which would have required them simply to label GMOs as GMOs in their ingredients (Einstein complained about it here, because label modification costs billions!), specifying that they're not the original forms of those organisms.

The same wealthy who own our chemical mega industries own our healthcare industries. They make money feeding the livestock (people), then they make money as the livestock slowly dies, futilely treating their cancers with even more chemicals. They think people are a parasite on the earth anyway (you know, the lesser people who aren't them). They have no problem killing off a few billion.

That's why natural doctors are prosecuted in this country. There's no big money to be made in natural medicine. The FDA reigns, and you can either buy their approved chemicals and shut up or risk going to jail. The more knowledge and control over their health people have, the less they can be controlled. Control is always the goal of the corrupt human beings with the most power on the globe. History is consistent on this one.

It's more profitable to keep people ignorant and bilk them for every dime they're worth than virtuously pursue science and medicine. What a shocker, the corrupt people at the top with power choose profit over our lives.

But Einstein doesn't understand the scientific method. His slave master said this stuff was safe, even though it produces its own toxic pesticides. And he's a big health nut--very healthy--and knows a lot about food. So maybe he's right.

Wait... so concentrated applies=lots of arsenic... a lethal poison...
So an apple a day actually doesn't keep a doctor away? 

Did you know Salt is a poison? Bleach is also. Chlorine which we drink daily (in civilized lands) is dangerous.

I am just starting.

You bleach your hair, I use bleach in my clothes, Chris bleaches a floor.

Bleach is all around us as one of the most common chemicals in use on Earth.