I absolutely hate propaganda like this.
Do you know exactly what genes are manipulated in the products above and what the resulting phenotypes are? (Because it’s not even the same gene in each transgenic product of the same type, let alone across genera). Do you have peer-reviewed studies listing the potential side-effects of those specific altered genes? Do you understand enough about risk/benefit analysis to consider the benefit of providing cheaper food at a higher quantity to low-income and impoverished individuals around the world before you open your mouth about a perceived threat due to an altered gene you don’t understand?
Sit down and let the scientists do their work.
You mean the corporate sponsored “scientists”? Independent studies are few and far between due to patent protection on GMOs that bars research without expressed consent and contract. The only propaganda of concern are the major studies usually cited that have been carried out by the very companies with an interest in their positive results, and typically last no longer than 90 days. During the time GMO crops were being developed and readied for sale (1992-2002) the USDA spent about $1.8 billion on ag-biotechnology research…of which about 1 percent went to safety testing. GMOs were considered GRAS (generally recognized as safe) even though they were the first of their kind, but as such no comprehensive long term testing was required.
Not only has GM soya produced 12–14% lower amounts of cancer-fighting isoflavones than non-GM soya, they’ve also shown to occasionally produce lower yields. 1.3 billion tons of food is wasted yearly, hunger is certainly not caused by a lack of food. Hunger is caused by a lack of access; the poor have no money to buy food and less land on which to grow it. Hunger is a social, political, and economic problem, which GM technology will not remedy.
Even more frightening are the results of the current longest running study (2 years):
Severe adverse health effects including mammary tumors and kidney and liver damage, leading to premature death…Up to 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely…compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.
It was noted that “almost all of the ill effects manifested after 90 days—the industry’s preferred length for its own feeding studies.”
The funny part about your argument is that you don’t know the answers to your own questions, no one really does. The companies profiting from GMOs have made it extremely difficult to test for side effects, thus making realistic risk/benefit analysis impossible; you cannot measure a benefit against an unknown risk. The difference between you and I is that for some reason you, like the USDA, see GMOs as “generally recognized as safe” with out any proof. While the USDA has financial motivations (GMO industries spend millions lobbying government agencies and quick research will reveal a revolving door from the USDA and FDA to and from the very companies they regulate) for speedy approval, you have nothing to gain from their sale. The better question is why are we in the United States so quick to take what companies state as law? That the United States has some of the most lax regulations on GM food in the developed world should raise concern. The GM foods debate is another manifestation of profit over people.