I'd post links to studies, but you made it clear you're not capable of reading or comprehending academic or scientific work the last time the topic was raised.

Maybe you should accept that you don't know what you're talking about and stop lying.

Your inability to read and process information is not evidence that big corporations care about you and want you to live a better life.

GMO chicken has caused women to develop bigger breasts, so I could care less if it kills both of you - GMO gets a +1 from me.

You want millions of people harmed by GMOs as evidence? How are our cancer and organ failure rates? Start looking at the diets of those people. 25% of deaths in the USA are from cancer, and that's only because we have so many unhealthy people who ruin their hearts and livers and brains before cancer has a chance to take them.

The notion that you understand math, science, research, or statistics is ridiculous. You didn't read the last study I linked on the topic; you rambled about problems that the study might have with its methodology (none of which it did). I've linked evidence, you've failed to refute it or respond to it in any way. Academic/scientific research is math. I've cited it. You haven't. You're spamming.

Complete nonsense. And this is why I'm ignoring your spam.

If people stop being so stupid and irresponsible they have children they can't feed, we can avoid that problem long before any possible wars over food.

The fact is that there's a lot of undeveloped land in this world, not being used for housing or farming or anything else. I'll be the first to advocate preserving a whole lot of that land in its natural state, but the notion that the earth will soon be unable to support its population is plain wrong.

I really hate reading some half-cocked idea with no basis in reality being thrown around in public because some fool heard it once and it sounded compelling. You can't respect people who don't respect themselves.

1) The cancer rate goes up as heart disease goes down. Lifespans are increasing. One gives to the other.

2) The other things do not match up, there is no across the board similar affects upon the billions of people eating. Yes BILLIONS

The Bt toxin used in GMO corn, for example, was recently detected in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, with possibly harmful consequences.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176863/tw … hy-wont-us

No worries! It's just poison in our bodies. A hundred million haven't dropped dead as a proven result, so let's keep it up and contaminate all the corn on the planet. It's just women and children.

A second objection concerns genetic contamination. A GMO crop, once released in the open, reproduces via pollination and interacts genetically with natural varieties of the same crop, producing what is called genetic contamination. According to a study published in Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, Bt corn has contaminated indigenous varieties of corn tested in Oaxaca, Mexico."

It's nothing to be concerned with! BT is good for men, women, and their children! The fact that this stuff spreads like a plague is no big deal! The earth wasn't good enough before; we're just making it better with new poisons in our food supply!

Third, a GMO, brought into natural surroundings, may have a toxic or lethal impact on other living things. Thus, it was found that Bt corn destroyed the larvae of the monarch butterfly, raising well grounded fears that many other natural plant and animal life may be impacted in the same way.

Naw, Einstein says it's okay! Ignore all evidence of harm! Einstein said it's okay!

He admittedly hasn't read a single study on the matter, but we can trust in his faith.

Fourth, the benefits of GMOs have been oversold by the companies, like Monsanto and Syngenta, that peddle them. Most genetically engineered crops are either engineered to produce their own pesticide in the form of Bacillus thurengiensis (Bt) or are designed to be resistant to herbicides, so that herbicides can be sprayed in massive quantities to kill pests without harming the crops. It has been shown, however, that insects are fast developing resistance to Bt as well as to herbicides, resulting in even more massive infestation by the new superbugs. No substantial evidence exists that GM crops yield more than conventional crops. What genetically engineered crops definitely do lead to is greater use of pesticide, which is harmful both to humans and the environment.

Nobody read the above! Avert your eyes! Einstein says they're good!

Thanks for linking propaganda.

First, its font size suggests it's for senile people well into the degeneration of their bodies--something they surely don't want to accept responsibility for, motivating a comforting theme in the article that poisoning themselves was tooootally not their fault!

Second, it starts off with false statements regarding "decades of research and extensive worldwide use of genetically engineered crops."

They're banned in 26 countries and highly regulated in 6 more. They're barely "decades" old to have that much testing. And almost all studies done in the US regarding GMO crops are funded by bio-engineering firms or other companies closely associated with them (and their financial success).

Third, and perhaps most importantly, that juvenile Forbes story you linked doesn't even mention BT. I'm sorry about the trouble you're having reading.

Good job responding to none of the other points, in this thread or the previous one. You wouldn't want us to think you were well researched and skeptical before professing your faith in Big Government and Big Business.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-st … lian-blood

Dr. Mezzomo and his team from the Department of Genetics and Morphology at the Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Brasilia recently performed and published a study done involving testing Bacillus thuringensis toxin (Bt toxin) on Swiss albino mice. This toxin is the same one built into Monsanto's GMO Bt crops such as corn and soy as a biopesticide.

While Bt toxin has been used quite safely in conventional and organic farming as an occasional spray used when dealing with a pest problem, now it has been engineered to be produced by and present throughout the inside of every cell and intercellular space of the plants themselves, which is why they chose to undertake the study.

It should also be noted that as bacteria use lateral transference of genetic material, making it a possibility for this genetic material to become part of the human body's bacterial bouquet that we depend on for our health (our bodies contain more bacteria cells than human ones by number).

The scientists already knew that Bt toxin was very toxic and potentially deadly at levels above 270 milligrams per kilogram (basically ppm), so they instead tested levels ranging from 27mg/kg, 136mg/kg, and 270mg/kg for one to seven days (each of the Cry toxins were separated out and tested individually to maximize accuracy and total info). It was quite clear right off the bat that these Cry toxins were quite hemotoxic even at the lowest level of 27mg/kg administered only one time and one day as they clearly had damaged the blood, particularly in reference to red blood cells. The quantity and size of the erythrocytes (RBCs) were both significantly reduced, as was the overall levels of hemoglobin for which oxygen to attach to.

All major factors regarding RBCs demonstrated some level of damage present for all levels of toxin administered and across all Cry proteins, although there were some clear variances present between different proteins and levels for certain factors. The white blood cell count was also quite noticeably raised, and as expected it dramatically increased depending on the duration the subject was tested for. 

The tests clearly demonstrated that Cry proteins were cytotoxic to bone marrow cells, accounting for a portion of the measured effects. It should also be noted that a previous study found that these proteins caused hemolysis (they killed blood cells) in vitro, particularly seeming to target the cell membranes of red blood cells.

Oh dear Sweet Jesus, substances known to be toxic are toxic!!!! SHOCKING REVELATION!

You can link all juvenile news stories with references to bio-engineering company studies you want arguing that, since there wasn't THAT much of the poisons present, it's toooootally safe, like seriously, we swear. That doesn't make it good science. And that doesn't make your position based on anything but faith.

It's a fact that poisons are harmful. It's a fact that they're in a lot of these plants. And it's a fact that these plants, once let loose, interbreed with the native and natural species and contaminate them.

It's also a fact that the genetic manipulations man is doing here are not possible with crop selection. You lied. So, back to ignoring you.

I didn't dismiss it based on the font. That's why so much text followed that humorous, albeit perhaps a bit truthful, bit.

It doesn't talk about "the BT experiment." In fact, there is no such thing as "the Bt experiment." You're rambling about nothing.

I'm not interested in equivocating over language. "[P]otentially deadly at levels above 270 milligrams per kilogram" is very "toxic" compared to oxygen. Of course the human body isn't used to breathing in 100% oxygen.

I was obviously referring to relatively high levels of toxicity compared to absolutely no toxicity when a toxin is not present. ie, The toxins present in many GMOs are more harmful than the lack of them. I'm not seeing you present an argument otherwise. I'm just seeing a lot of spam to avoid addressing what I've actually posted.

The fact that carbon dioxide is toxic to mammals in high enough concentrations is not somehow an argument that cyanide is not toxic, or that "toxic" doesn't mean anything.

You're just desperately making false claims because the truth is, we know these plants produce things which are harmful. It's a fact.

I'm done with my community service for the week. Nobody else is going to take the time to correct someone who doesn't know the difference between genetic engineering and crop selection.

Retracted studies of Bt Corn claims

Yes the publisher retracted after they found that the study was 'inconclusive'.

Cross Pollination fears of Bt Corn not founded in science

Continue being a courier of the message of the hard left Kemp, your inability to actually discern science is your error.