Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
Hey, Rupert- thanks for the link; I read it. However, I did some additional googling on the study, and it's hugely, hugely flawed, so I don't think one can draw any conclusions from it as it was run by a scientist with an agenda, and the rats used were predisposed to develop tumors anyway. Here's a good piece on the major errors in the study, and how the media was manipulated into releasing it:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach
Again, I haven't been convinced one way or another about GMOs, but I fully support labeling and letting consumers choose. |
I wasn't claiming that there was irrefutable proof that it causes cancer. I was just saying that there was "some evidence" that it may cause cancer. Even if there is no credible proof (at this point) that it causes cancer, I agree with you that genetically modified food should still be labeled so that we can decide whether we want to buy that brand or another brand that has not been genetically modified.
By the way, I'm sure companies like Monsanto are spending millions to bash any study that shows genetically modified food is dangerous. Do you think they would ever admit that their products may be dangerous? I'm sure they will always claim that the study was flawed if they don't like the results of the study.
By the way, the fact that the rats were rats that were predisposed to cancer does not mean the results were not important. There are millions of people that are predisposed to cancer. A person may be predisposed to cancer without even knowing it. I have no idea if I am or not. Neither of my parents ever had cancer but my grandmother did. I would have no way of knowing if I am predisposed to cancer.