Even the monsanto website says there's no human safety studies.

The answer to this is simple: It isn't safe.

You can't prove to anyone with half a brain that a GMO modified for the specific purpose to be sprayed with more toxins, which increases every year, is safe to eat. That just does not compute.

Conventionally grown produce is often sprayed with more pesticides---that are more dangerous to humans---than GMOs are. Roundup does not bioaccumulate and is noncarcinogenic.

GMO's endanger our food safety - over 90% of our corn in America is GMO. What were to happen if something afflicted our GMO crops? Also, the monocropping that goes along with GMO's destroys the soil. Also GMO's create super weeds which have become resistant to many of the pesticides used and they are now considering using the stronger stuff (used in agent orange). Also, the terminator seeds are antithetical when considering food-security. It does no one, any good (except Monsanto/Dupont etc) to copyright and develop seeds that cannot create an abundance of more seeds. Nature is abundant, one seed can make a plant with thousands of seeds to grow next year. These are all major reasons without discussing one point in regards to health concerns. There has not been any longterm studies (besides the lambasted one which was >3 months that showed indefinitely, tumor growths etc) to show that GMO's are safe.

What were to happen if something afflicted our GMO crops?

Biodiversity is a problem but it is not unique to GMOs. Conventional strains are just as susceptible.

Also GMO's create super weeds which have become resistant to many of the pesticides used and they are now considering using the stronger stuff (used in agent orange).

Do you have a source for this?

Also, the terminator seeds are antithetical when considering food-security.

Terminator seeds were developed and patented but they have never been sold. They are not commercially available.

Democracy Now! GMO segment from last week - they discuss 2,4-D (main ingredient in agent orange) and Dicamba as more toxic and is being considered to be used to help combat superweeds [54:40'sh for the exact part]: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/8/washington_state_vote_to_label_gm

Thanks.

Citations from after 2008 required. One for each statement please.

Scientists don't constantly duplicate and republish well-established science. "Breaking News: Salt is Still NaCl!" Your request for "Citations from after 2008" is nonsensical and shows your lack of understanding of the process by which scientific research is published and evaluated.

Here is a review from 2000 on the safety of Roundup for humans.

Okay so 0 studies given out of 3 studies requested. And the study you irrelevantly did give is from 2000, before we understood the incredible harm that glyphosate has on us. I call that a fail.

Can you provide a link to a single one of these studies that you assert exist?

Statement 1:

Conventionally grown produce is often sprayed with more pesticides

Citation not given. This was believed to be true before 2008.

Citations post-2008 proving that GMO uses more pesticides

Statement 2:

Roundup does not bioaccumulate

Citation not given.

Citation from 2009 proving bioaccumulation

Statement 3:

Roundup is noncarcinogenic.

Citation not given.

Citation from 2010 proving carcinogenesis

Citation from 2012 proving carcinogenesis

Thanks for your links. Very interesting.

The thing I just can't get past is...

If GMO's are perfectly safe, why did Monstanto write the Monsanto Protection Act and then brib... er, lobby Congress to include it verbatim as a tack-on to a bill?

I know that bill is now expired, but they still did it.

If GMO's are perfectly safe, why did they feel the need to spend the millions of dollars it took to brib... oops, lobby, Congress to get that bill passed?

Also, why are they and others who use their products spending tens of millions of dollars per state to fight against GMO labeling?

[deleted]

If they have nothing to hide, maybe we should wiretap all of their offices and meetings to be publicly scrutinized. I'll admit that if such a thing occurred in real life and we found out that all Monsanto employees were good hearted, tough and intelligent Americans who just wanted to provide food for their country, I'd buy the shit out of gmos. Sadly, it's probably closer to "holy shit joe, I can't believe we got that through peer review. Lets celebrate on our yachts."

heh.. Good hearted chemical weapons manufacturers turned benign gardeners.... riiiiiight~

The NSA already has. RELEASE the TAPES!

This sounds an awful lot like what the government tells us when they say they want to keep track of our data.

If you have nothing to hide, why hide it? Do you follow these same practices in your daily life?

Exactly. Truth doesn't require lies to see it proven true. There is no study that is independent and proves the long term effects to humans. We coevolved for millions of years, now changing this is considered safe? Prove it.

Don't fall for it people, I've ran across Adamwho on many GMO threads, if defending GMOs and discrediting anyone who questions them isn't his job then O.J. is innocent as well. All jokes aside, it doesn't take a scientist to realize that just like these big corporations fixed cigarette studies to the point where cigarettes were considered good for your lungs and endurance.. The same thing could be happening here, and I say "could" just to keep an open mind, I think most intelligent people who have studied history or have a bit of common sense and logical thinking know the truth about this topic. Animal studies show it, the obesity, diabetes, and many other health problems that are drastically on the rise in the past 20 years are a clear indication of that. We are Guinea pigs, and we are playing Russian roulette with our own health and life. If this study is any indication as to some of the side effects of certain GMO products, and these potentially devastating side effects don't even show for a few generations... Anyway, please don't bother trying to discredit what I just said, I don't give a fuck about anyone else's opinion on the topic, I can luckily afford organic food and I grow my own.. I don't see why I need to eat that shit when I can just as easily not. I only take calculated risks and this isn't one of them.

The argument that gmos are cheaper doesn't hold water. I could argue that digging through a restaurants trash is cheaper than buying gmos, is that an argument for digging through restaurant trash?

O.J. actually was innocent. All real evidence leads to his son - Jason. O.J. was protecting his son, and obviously he wasn't guilty so he had no problem taking the trial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUg_wzuWAJw

Claiming that people who argue with you must be paid is incredibly narcissistic.

The science stands on its own with the GMO issue. That is why people have to post anti-GMO stuff in the conspiracy theory subs; they know it won't stand up to scrutiny in the science subs.

You're missing the point of my message. I'm not basing my opinion on science, rather on a gamble I'm not willing to take, because I don't have to. It's a logical decision based off of the lack of true and independent research of the long term effects.

Aside from that, like I said, the O.J. Thing was a joke, and you can all fuxk off I'm not eating that shit! You can be the Guinea pig if you want I don't care, there are plenty of idiots that are wrecking this planet I wouldn't mind seeing not able to reproduce anyway.

Eat up buttercup.

You're missing the point of my message. I'm not basing my opinion on science, rather on a gamble I'm not willing to take, because I don't have to. It's a logical decision based off of the lack of true and independent research of the long term effects.

Pure Luddite argument.

There is no mechanism for DNA to interact with you. Digestion destroys the DNA.

At best you could claim that a protein coded by the DNA might interact, but that is something the is actually tested for.

Not getting into pointless arguments with you again, it's almost as if you're not even reading my post.

I . DON'T .. GIVE .. A. FUCK.

FUCK OFF

Hope that was clear enough for you.

I am sorry that you find yourself on the wrong side of science.

I understand it is frustrating being lumped in with the creationists, climate change deniers, anti-vax and 911 truthers.

The good news is that you are not trapped, you can start basing your beliefs on facts, evidence and scientific theory.

So does this thread not prove this is either a bot or a person with slight learning disability copy pasting straight out of a script? Perhaps slightly inebriated as well. These rebuttals don't even make sense, I never said anything against science.

This is what bugs me about reddit lately, everything is being censored, except obvious trolling and shilling.

Mercury was used in medicine for 500 years before it was scientifically proven to be extremely toxic. And even then continued to be used.

Just put two brain cells together.

The same is true with asbestos. And who said it was safe? The asbestos industry. Interesting. Seems very similar, if not identical to GMO here.

Such fools supporting that which is not completely proven safe.

Same with radiation and ...who cares? lol

Yeah, wear sunglasses and you'll be just fine (dies six months later). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175498/Nuclear-bombs-REALLY-safe-Astonishing-video-1957-shows-Air-Force-volunteers-exposing-RADIATION-atomic-test.html

It's all relative

"It is expected that people die from anything at least one time, they can't run tests that will guarantee you 100% harmless results from their food ingestion. Just to show you, a woman died last year just from eating a [organic apple](blahblah.com), thousands of babies die from milk poisoning every year and some people even die from alergies alone.

So now that we have the damage of organic food on display why would people still choose GMO products? Very simple, it's cheaper and lasts longer, two very important aspects for the food consumerism. As far as I see, GMO may not be safer than organic food but it sure is better."

_

That sums about everything that I have read in GMO defensive texts. Still, I will always choose organic over GMO, fuck food eugenics, the fact that they are spending a shit ton of money to make people buy their products shows how desperate they are.

I don't see the point. If a lady chokes on an apple, dies from excessive sulfuryl fluoride residue on the apple, or dies from an allergic reaction from the apple, that doesn't negate the safety for the general population. Whether GMO corn causes an increase in any disease over the lifetime of a human compared to organic and compared to conventional corn should be relatively easy to figure out. I would settle for a 5 year chimpanzee study that was corroborated with several labs not funded by special interests. A short rat study doesn't prove anything except that you will probably survive the diet for a few years if you scale it up to humans.

Hey, no, you are getting me wrong. I am not defending GMO, I just posted a short example of every GMO defensive texts I have found so far to show how ridiculous it can get.

Right. I'm not arguing with you, just the argument you cited. I get it.

I'd love to see the same. Prove to me that the stuff you want me to ingest is safe. Prove to me that it is safe enough I would feed it to my child. If you can do that, I'll buy it. I promise.

can we see your Monsanto and Dow chemical tattoos and/or access badges?

To be fair, that group would be the most knowledgeable about the results of any studies that might have been conducted on GMOs, right?

Yes. I'd assume at least half of the people who spend 8 hours per day on reddit doing nothing but "killing the GMO myths" work for the companies they care so much about. It's hard to fathom another reason for that type of behavior, so I figured I would ask to see their cool badges.

there is a lot..

[deleted]

It's a guaranteed way to feel intelligent. When you have such high authority names and "science" to back you up, everyone is a retard if they disagree or are skeptical. Corruption cannot ever happen with government regulators and industry. Scientists have never recommended you smoke cigarettes for breathing difficulties.

Pays their cable bill.

A Monsanto troll?

How much are you being paid to shill?

As I've already stated in this thread, I am a shill. That's a fact and I admit it. I even made a thread about it. I'm not hiding anything.

How much do you get paid?

10 cents a post and free grapes. Thanks for the dime.

What do you see when you look at yourself in the mirror?

[deleted]

Hmm. I think you're missing the point. It's extremely easy to genetically engineer poisonous food. That's why some gmos never made it to maket.

2) There are studies on various food items that are not GMO. You'll see that if you dive into nutrition a bit.

3) gmos are the new food. We should take our time when introducing new types of food, first triple checking for safety. There is nothing wrong with waiting 10 years for a proper study. We've had many generations to notice any weird side effects from certain foods. For instance: eating too much seafood causes mercury poisoning.

4) A corporation involved with pushing poisonous products to market in the past should be scrutinized more heavily, which is what we are doing. They, along with other food/chemical corporations, pushed DDT on us and poisoned the entire world. If you trust them, I feel bad for you.

I submitted a link about GMOs a few months ago, and of course adamwhos software tipped him off to it. When I saw his name in this thread it cracked me up..

Just imagine if someone was really that passionately pro-GMO/pro Monsanto and not getting paid. That would be straight up psychopath stuff.

Adamwho and Mr. Vargar are the same person and have been exposed multiple times. They are not convincing, and do not have science on their side. Exposed as GMO shills time and time again. Say GMO or Monsanto and they show up within minutes. Every.single.time.

I propose we test this by posting in obscure threads. In one thread we will use words not typically used to describe gmos and in another we will use standard words. Also, is jfqueeny tied into this?

You seem mad. Just an observation. Oh and I don't care for studies, It should be pretty obvious that real cow just taste better. :)

I wasn't mad at all. This was mostly just trolling the GMO tards. I keep seeing them post pro gmo stuff all over reddit because you can't prove gmos are dangerous (which is actually a lie. Several studies were shown in this tread.) Then I made a thread after this claiming I was a shill for a local organic farm who pays me in grapes because someone insinuated that I was shilling.

All in a day's work.

Hey man I will trade you some grapes on the low low for some of that og kush. :)

The way I see it is no food is 100% safe. There is always a chance that you are allergic and don't know it, or it's been contaminated by poor sanitation standards or even hybridization(through natural crossbreeding of strains of the same species) that causes genetic malformations. You can never be sure that your food is 100% safe.

Lets also not forget that we've been messing with plant genetics through hybridization for 100s of years already without the aid of scientifically based genetic engineering. What we know now as corn on the cob doesn't even remotely resemble the original corn. The original corn was much more similar to popcorn; hard and dense. We selected artificially for corn that was soft, sweet with large kernels. If you don't like corn lets talk about carrots. Initially carrots were gross and used for medicinal purposes. It wasn't until they had been cultivated that they were considered palatable. Even then carrots were small. Only after thousands of years of cross breeding did we get the super delicious carrots we have now. You could say similar things about tomatoes. Scientifically based genetic engineering is simply skipping the time necessary to create better versions of things we already have.

If you like organic food that's fine but it's unfair to ignore that these are all genetically modified foods. There is no reason for the panic. The reason there are no good studies is because these new strains haven't been around long enough to determine how safe they are. People haven't eaten enough of them for a long enough period of time to make any conclusions. This is in contrast to our current hybrids that have existed for 1000s of years which we know are(mostly) safe. In 100 years it may prove that they are very dangerous but until there is enough data it's not reasonable to draw any conclusions.

I don't think that you should be forced or coerced into eating GMOs if you don't want and it is completely fair to ask that they are labeled. It's your right to know exactly what you are eating but I think it's a better idea to not spread panic and discuss these things with a level head and analysis based on science and logic. If you ask me for my opinion I don't think GMOs are harmful. This belief is based on the logic I presented above. There are more important things to be worrying about in my mind, like the impending loss of efficacy in antibiotics or the extinction of the banana because of the lack in genetic diversity(caused by hybridization and the over use of one cultivar).

I also think you are going about having a reasonable discussion in a very distasteful way. Calling people retards and accusing them of being shills before even receiving the information you are seeking makes you look like a loon and doesn't help your side at all. You aren't wrong to request evidence but you are wrong to do it in a seriously dickish way.

Even hybridization has problems. Look at what happened to wheat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qT3kVYr4Xo

ATTN Anti-GMO tards: if you want me to not buy their products, please cite multiple long-term human studies without conflicts of interest for ANY GMO on the market proving ANY harmful effects.

How can you have any long-term independent scientific studies when nothing is labeled? And when the big three do their damnedest to prevent independent studies?

By conducting a study using gmo foods... Why would consumer labeling matter in a scientific study where everything is known? You are a crackpot. Go back to your commune.

You don't understand how patent law works. Studies need approval by the patent owners.

Which Monsanto is NOT GRANTING.

Do you plan on locking people up in a lab for 10 years? Fuck people are dumb

Your the one thats extra long test periods, not me.

Asbestos, DDT. Go ahead and eat up. I don't care. What I do care about is a bunch of jackasses parading their trust in food/chemical corporations/government regulators as if that somehow makes them intellectual and progressive. It's a risk, so admit it.

Cracks me up, on reddit especially, how you're automatically a crackpot if you say anything negative about GMOs. As if no product in history has ever been pushed out to the public and then found out later to be harmful.

ever been pushed out to the public and then found out later to be harmful.

Of course this has happened. And of course when it has happened, it has been proven. Show me the proof that GMOs are harmful. If you say things that are negative about GMOs, but cannot provide any proof of your assertion, then yes, you are a crackpot.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/05/11/scientists-discover-bt-toxins-found-in-monsanto-crops-damage-red-blood-cells/

BT/cry has been used since the late 60's. The only new development is that GMO plants can now produce it themselves rather than wait for the farmer to sprinkle it on their leaves. Don't you think if it was a toxic poison we would have noticed sometime in the last 40+ years?

The advantage of GMO engineering over traditional use of foliar BT is that there are actually a multitude of cry proteins expressed by BT and genetic engineering allows us to use them selectively to target certain organisms while minimizing impact on others. Cry proteins work by messing with insects' digestive tracts. Of course it's preferable to kill just corn borers and leave other harmless insects alone.

Spraying bacillus thuringiensis on your crop is an accepted form of organic pesticide and has been used for a long time in both conventional and organic farming.

In other words, if cry proteins are toxic, they are not very toxic, and the issue has very little to do with GMOs considering that use of the same BT proteins both outdates GMOs by several decades and is still used in organic farming. If anything, crops genetically modified to express specific cry traits have less impact on non-targeted species overall than do non-GMO crops that are just dusted with BT, which is the alternative.

By the way, you should read this article in Critical Reviews in Toxicology which refutes that study you cited and points out all its methodological flaws. I know you will just dismiss it without considering it however, since its coauthors include Monsanto and Bayer scientists.

The fallacy you make is you think the BT toxin produced in GMO is the same as the BT toxin being sprayed. They are of course very different.

And no, I have no interest in reading a study written by Monsanto.

I didn't say they were the same. I explained how they are different. The cry proteins expressed in GMO crops are more selective and have a lower impact on non-targeted species than the cry proteins present in organic pesticides like Dipel/Thuricide. If there is some other difference, I would love for you to explain it to me.

The pusztai study proved that the proteins made by GMO are different than the proteins made by the original organism. Rather than exploring that phenomenon, he was gagged and smeared and his experiment never repeated. Then seralini came along, and then the same thing happened.

I love how people say how rubbish those studies are and yet never demand that they be reproduced.

Are we changing the subject now? Becaue the Pusztai study did not involve bacillus thuringiensis or its genes. Neither did the Seralini study.

By the way, you should be embarassed to even mention the Seralini study. It was an outright fraud.

See. You are derailing just like every other biotech cheerleader.

The gmo produces proteins from foreign organisms. The pusztai study showed that gmo produced proteins are different than the original proteins.

And of course instead of demanding a repeat of the Seralini experiment you ironically quote the same source (Forbes) which showed that gmo is of no benefit

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

The pusztai study showed that gmo produced proteins are different than the original proteins.

I really have no idea what you mean by this. Different how? Do you really mean that every time scientists genetically engineer an organism to produce a certain protein, that they ALWAYS FAIL? That they always end up with an organism that produces SOME OTHER PROTEIN? Why would it be "different?" Different, how?

I reviewed the Pusztai study that I'm sure you're referencing, and I didn't see anything in there that said anything to the effect of "gmo produced proteins are different than the original proteins. What it says is that the subject of the study was potatoes that had been genetically modified to express GNA lectin, and the researchers measure the levels of the GNA lectin. I see nowhere that says that the potatoes actually did not contain GNA lectin but actually contained some "different" protein. Can you help me out?

Seralini study used bt corn which is most definitely bacillus thuringiensis

No, he did not use bt corn. Read his actual article. Do you see BT mentioned anywhere in it? No, you do not, because it was a study of nk603 corn, which is a RoundUp Ready corn. There's a big difference between introducing a gene which creates a built-in pesticide and introducing a gene which makes the plant resistant to broad-leaf herbicide.

The Pusztai study showed that potatoes with the GNA gene were toxic, yet potatoes fed to rats with GNA added were not toxic.

Thus, he demonstrated that GMO was inherently harmful because the proteins are different.

No, he did not use bt corn

I stand corrected. Regardless, same tactics used to smear instead of recreate the experiment.

That's not how it works. You show me proof that they aren't harmful before pushing them out into the food supply.

r u serious?

You mean those things that are no longer used because science did long term studies and found out they were harmful. We are asking for those studies on gmo, you have no provided any.

Shouldn't the burden of proof of safety be placed upon the organizations genetically modifying organisms they expect humans to consume?

It should and it is. The food is tested. There is no study that has found adverse effects of gmo foods. People are talking about extreme long term effects for extended lengths of time. Since the short term tests have found nothing wrong people are demanding longer and longer term tests. There is no test length that will satisfy them.

Here's one about the toxicity of GMO corn

Here's over 100 citations on the harm of glyphosate which is used in excess on Round-up ready crops

First one says "studies", not pier reviewer. The citations are from "occupymonsanto.org" and "gmoevidence.com", clearly biased and unreliable.

the 2nd one is also from an un trustworthy website that is not pier reviewed. Let me know when you find a study that uses science and pier review.

First, it's spelled "peer".

Second.

Here is your study

That isn't my study. You give me 2 bullshit studies and then try to give me another. Sad little hippie.

Oh classic moving goal post fallacy followed by an ad hominem. Sorry, I mistook you for someone who actually wanted information.

lols, trollin aint ez is it kid? You gave me another bullshit study from a bullshit website. the study is on mice. How delusional are you that you get on a high horse for posting bullshit? Did you even read a word of what you posted? do you realize they have no scientific relevance to gmo foods and humans?

Your posts are ridiculous.

I read through his comments once in a while. It's weird, he doesn't seem to be trolling, just really ignorant. You'd think most people would figure it out after a while, but he's had six years and hasn't changed a bit. It's like low-level autism or something, I don't know.

Calling out bullshit is ridiculous?

Only you and adamwho know that shilling ain't easy. You've been destroyed here, and yet you come back for more. More lies. More distraction. More attacks. No science to back up your lies.

No science to back up your lies.

I'm the one who asked for science and people only posted bullshit studies that don't have any scientific merit. You cooks need to stop deluding yourselves.

Until long term independent human studies are performed, GMO is in class with the likes of radioactivity, asbestos, and murcury. Providing labels to GMO food should be mamdatory. Of people fear needlessly, as you claim, long term human studies would be performed. Putting your government subsidized, revolving door, corrupt, non independently verified, criminal money where your mouth is. Unreasonable to expect? Corruption is rampant, and trust should be offered?

I hope the pay is worth more than your soul. A traitor to his fellow man...a coward.

I hope you get RES and learn how to use reddit. Also I hope you learn how to spell mandatory. Take your fear mongering someplace else and try reading up on science.

Science paid by Monsanto? Your trust is pretty shallow, and not interested in long term proven truth.

I asked for science, you seem to think science is hard to come by. Go use your healing crystals and homeopathy.

And science to you is? The same science used to prove radiation was safe? Healing crystals? Not quite? An open eyes and objective viewpoint of everything I encounter and/or seek. Strangely so foreign to people auxh as yourself.

The same science used to prove radiation was safe?

lols...

Key citations:

1. Álvarez-Alfageme F, von Burg S, Romeis J. Infestation of transgenic powdery mildew-resistant wheat by naturally occurring insect herbivores under different environmental conditions. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22690. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022690. Epub 2011 Jul 28. PubMed PMID: 21829479; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3145666. Impact Factor: 3.730.

2. Anilkumar B, Reddy AG, Kalakumar B, Rani MU, Anjaneyulu Y, Raghunandan T, Reddy YR, Jyothi K, Gopi KS. Sero-biochemical Studies in Sheep Fed with Bt Cotton Plants. Toxicol Int. 2010 Jul;17(2):99-101. doi: 10.4103/0971-6580.72680. PubMed PMID: 21170255; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2997465. Impact Factor: 0.510.

3. Atkinson HJ, Johnston KA, Robbins M. Prima facie evidence that a phytocystatin for transgenic plant resistance to nematodes is not a toxic risk in the human diet. J Nutr. 2004 Feb;134(2):431-4. PubMed PMID: 14747684. Impact factor: 3.302

4. Aulrich K, Böhme H, Daenicke R, Halle I, Flachowsky G. Genetically modified feeds in animal nutrition. 1st communication: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn in poultry, pig and ruminant nutrition. Arch Tierernahr. 2001;54(3):183-95. PubMed PMID: 11865766.

5. Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenço T, Oliveira MM. Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 4;105(9):3640-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707881105. Epub 2008 Feb 26. PubMed PMID: 18303117; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2265136. Impact factor: 9.681.

6. Bakan B, Melcion D, Richard-Molard D, Cahagnier B. Fungal growth and fusarium mycotoxin content in isogenic traditional maize and genetically modified maize grown in France and Spain. J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Feb 13;50(4):728-31. PubMed PMID: 11829636. Impact factor: 2.906.

7. Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR. Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnol J. 2006 Jul;4(4):369-80. PubMed PMID: 17177803. Impact factor: 5.442

8. Brake DG, Thaler R, Evenson DP. Evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn on mouse testicular development by dual parameter flow cytometry. J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Apr 7;52(7):2097-102. PubMed PMID: 15053558. Impact factor: 2.906

9. Brake DG, Evenson DP. A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004 Jan;42(1):29-36. PubMed PMID: 14630127. Impact factor: 3.010

10. Böhme H, Aulrich K, Daenicke R, Flachowsky G. Genetically modified feeds in animal nutrition. 2nd communication: glufosinate tolerant sugar beets (roots and silage) and maize grains for ruminants and pigs. Arch Tierernahr. 2001;54(3):197-207. PubMed PMID: 11865767.

11. Böhme H, Rudloff E, Schöne F, Schumann W, Hüther L, Flachowsky G. Nutritional assessment of genetically modified rapeseed synthesizing high amounts of mid-chain fatty acids including production responses of growing-finishing pigs. Arch Anim Nutr. 2007 Aug;61(4):308-16. PubMed PMID: 17760308. Impact factor: 1.095 (fairly low, but a new journal)

12. Borejsza-Wysocka E, Norelli JL, Aldwinckle HS, Malnoy M. Stable expression and phenotypic impact of attacin E transgene in orchard grown apple trees over a 12 year period. BMC Biotechnol. 2010 Jun 3;10:41. doi: 10.1186/1472-6750-10-41. PubMed PMID: 20525262; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2910661. Impact Impact: 2.165.

13. Brown NM, Setchell KD. Animal models impacted by phytoestrogens in commercial chow: implications for pathways influenced by hormones. Lab Invest. 2001 May;81(5):735-47. PubMed PMID: 11351045. Impact Factor: 3.961

14. Bub A, Möseneder J, Wenzel G, Rechkemmer G, Briviba K. Zeaxanthin is bioavailable from genetically modified zeaxanthin-rich potatoes. Eur J Nutr. 2008 Mar;47(2):99-103. doi: 10.1007/s00394-008-0702-2. Epub 2008 Mar 4. PubMed PMID: 18320254. Impact factor: 3.127.

15. Cao S, Xu W, Luo Y, He X, Yuan Y, Ran W, Liang L, Huang K. Metabonomics study of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis rice (T2A-1) meal in a 90-day dietary toxicity study in rats. Mol Biosyst. 2011 Jul;7(7):2304-10. doi: 10.1039/c1mb05076a. Epub 2011 May 19. PubMed PMID: 21594293. Impact Factor: 3.350.

16. Catchpole GS, Beckmann M, Enot DP, Mondhe M, Zywicki B, Taylor J, Hardy N, Smith A, King RD, Kell DB, Fiehn O, Draper J.Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 4;102(40):14458-62. Epub 2005 Sep 26. PubMed PMID: 16186495; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1242293. Impact factor: 9.681.

17. Cattaneo MG, Yafuso C, Schmidt C, Huang CY, Rahman M, Olson C, Ellers-Kirk C, Orr BJ, Marsh SE, Antilla L, Dutilleul P, Carrière Y.Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 16;103(20):7571-6. Epub 2006 May 4. PubMed PMID: 16675554; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1457091. Impact factor: 9.681.

18. Chambers PA, Duggan PS, Heritage J, Forbes JM. The fate of antibiotic resistance marker genes in transgenic plant feed material fed to chickens. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002 Jan;49(1):161-4. PubMed PMID: 11751781. Impact factor: 5.338

19. Cheeke TE, Rosenstiel TN, Cruzan MB. Evidence of reduced arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal colonization in multiple lines of Bt maize. Am J Bot. 2012 Apr;99(4):700-7. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1100529. Epub 2012 Apr 2. PubMed PMID: 22473978. Impact factor: 2.586

20. Chen ZL, Gu H, Li Y, Su Y, Wu P, Jiang Z, Ming X, Tian J, Pan N, Qu LJ. Safety assessment for genetically modified sweet pepper and tomato. Toxicology. 2003 Jun 30;188(2-3):297-307. PubMed PMID: 12767699. Impact Factor: 3.763

21. Cheng KC, Beaulieu J, Iquira E, Belzile FJ, Fortin MG, Strömvik MV. Effect of transgenes on global gene expression in soybean is within the natural range of variation of conventional cultivars. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 May 14;56(9):3057-67. doi: 10.1021/jf073505i. Epub 2008 Apr 23. PubMed PMID: 18433101. Impact factor 2.906.

22. Chowdhury EH, Kuribara H, Hino A, Sultana P, Mikami O, Shimada N, Guruge KS, Saito M, Nakajima Y. Detection of corn intrinsic and recombinant DNA fragments and Cry1Ab protein in the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed genetically modified corn Bt11. J Anim Sci. 2003 Oct;81(10):2546-51. PubMed PMID: 14552382. Impact Factor: 2.093.

23. Chowdhury EH, Mikami O, Murata H, Sultana P, Shimada N, Yoshioka M, Guruge KS, Yamamoto S, Miyazaki S, Yamanaka N, Nakajima Y. Fate of maize intrinsic and recombinant genes in calves fed genetically modified maize Bt11. J Food Prot. 2004 Feb;67(2):365-70. PubMed PMID: 14968971. Impact Factor: 1.832.

24. Chowdhury EH, Shimada N, Murata H, Mikami O, Sultana P, Miyazaki S, Yoshioka M, Yamanaka N, Hirai N, Nakajima Y. Detection of Cry1Ab protein in gastrointestinal contents but not visceral organs of genetically modified Bt11-fed calves. Vet Hum Toxicol. 2003 Mar;45(2):72-5. PubMed PMID: 12678290. Impact Factor: 0.66 (journal was discontinued in 2004, which means the impact factor drops every year since closing).

25. Chrenková M, Sommer A, Ceresnáková Z, Nitrayová S, Prostredná M. Nutritional evaluation of genetically modified maize corn performed on rats. Arch Tierernahr. 2002 Jun;56(3):229-35. PubMed PMID: 12391907.

26. Cleveland TE, Dowd PF, Desjardins AE, Bhatnagar D, Cotty PJ. United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service research on pre-harvest prevention of mycotoxins and mycotoxigenic fungi in US crops. Pest Manag Sci. 2003 Jun-Jul;59(6-7):629-42. Review. PubMed PMID: 12846313. Impact Factor: 2.594.

27. Coll A, Nadal A, Collado R, Capellades G, Kubista M, Messeguer J, Pla M. Natural variation explains most transcriptomic changes among maize plants of MON810 and comparable non-GM varieties subjected to two N-fertilization farming practices. Plant Mol Biol. 2010 Jun;73(3):349-62. doi: 10.1007/s11103-010-9624-5. Epub 2010 Mar 27. PubMed PMID: 20349115. Impact Factor: 3.518

28. Coll A, Nadal A, Collado R, Capellades G, Messeguer J, Melé E, Palaudelmàs M, Pla M. Gene expression profiles of MON810 and comparable non-GM maize varieties cultured in the field are more similar than are those of conventional lines. Transgenic Res. 2009 Oct;18(5):801-8. doi: 10.1007/s11248-009-9266-z. Epub 2009 Apr 26. PubMed PMID: 19396622. Impact factor: 2.906.

29. Dai PL, Zhou W, Zhang J, Cui HJ, Wang Q, Jiang WY, Sun JH, Wu YY, Zhou T. Field assessment of Bt cry1Ah corn pollen on the survival, development and behavior of Apis mellifera ligustica. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2012 May;79:232-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.01.005. Epub 2012 Feb 23. PubMed PMID: 22364780. Impact Factor: 2.203.

30. Defernez M, Gunning YM, Parr AJ, Shepherd LV, Davies HV, Colquhoun IJ. NMR and HPLC-UV profiling of potatoes with genetic modifications to metabolic pathways. J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Oct 6;52(20):6075-85. PubMed PMID: 15453669. Impact Factor: 2.906.

31. Di Carli M, Villani ME, Renzone G, Nardi L, Pasquo A, Franconi R, Scaloni A, Benvenuto E, Desiderio A. Leaf proteome analysis of transgenic plants expressing antiviral antibodies. J Proteome Res. 2009 Feb;8(2):838-48. doi: 10.1021/pr800359d. PubMed PMID: 19099506. Impact factor: 5.056

32. Domingo JL, Giné Bordonaba J. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environ Int. 2011 May;37(4):734-42. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. Epub 2011 Feb 5. Review. PubMed PMID: 21296423. Impact Factor: 6.248

33. Dowd PF. Indirect reduction of ear molds and associated mycotoxins in Bacillus thuringiensis corn under controlled and open field conditions: utility and limitations. J Econ Entomol. 2000 Dec;93(6):1669-79. PubMed PMID: 11142297. Impact factor: 1.600.

Copy/paste from Monsanto shilling handbook.

Which one is the human safety study?

1. Dowd PF. Biotic and abiotic factors limiting efficacy of Bt corn in indirectly reducing mycotoxin levels in commercial fields. J Econ Entomol. 2001 Oct;94(5):1067-74. PubMed PMID: 11681667. Impact factor: 1.600.

2. Dubouzet JG, Ishihara A, Matsuda F, Miyagawa H, Iwata H, Wakasa K. Integrated metabolomic and transcriptomic analyses of high-tryptophan rice expressing a mutant anthranilate synthase alpha subunit. J Exp Bot. 2007;58(12):3309-21. Epub 2007 Sep 4. PubMed PMID: 17804429. Impact factor: 5.242.

3. Duan JJ, Marvier M, Huesing J, Dively G, Huang ZY. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt crops on honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS One. 2008 Jan 9;3(1):e1415. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001415. PubMed PMID: 18183296; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2169303. Impact Factor: 3.730.

4. Duc C, Nentwig W, Lindfeld A. No adverse effect of genetically modified antifungal wheat on decomposition dynamics and the soil fauna community–a field study. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025014. Epub 2011 Oct 17. PubMed PMID: 22043279; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3197184. Impact Factor: 3.730.

5. Duggan PS, Chambers PA, Heritage J, Forbes JM. Survival of free DNA encoding antibiotic resistance from transgenic maize and the transformation activity of DNA in ovine saliva, ovine rumen fluid and silage effluent. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2000 Oct 1;191(1):71-7. PubMed PMID: 11004402. Impact factor: 2.049.

6. Eizaguirre M, Albajes R, López C, Eras J, Lumbierres B, Pons X. Six years after the commercial introduction of Bt maize in Spain: field evaluation, impact and future prospects. Transgenic Res. 2006 Feb;15(1):1-12. Review. PubMed PMID: 16475005. Impact factor: 2.609.

7. Enot DP, Beckmann M, Overy D, Draper J. Predicting interpretability of metabolome models based on behavior, putative identity, and biological relevance of explanatory signals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Oct 3;103(40):14865-70. Epub 2006 Sep 21. PubMed PMID: 16990432; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1595442. Impact factor: 9.681.

***41. Ewen SW, Pusztai A. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 1999 Oct 16;354(9187):1353-4. PubMed PMID: 10533866. Impact Factor: 39.060 (one of the highest impact factor medical journals)

1. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A, Mengheri E. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Dec 10;56(23):11533-9. doi: 10.1021/jf802059w. PubMed PMID: 19007233. Impact Factor: 2.906

2. Flachowsky G, Halle I, Aulrich K. Long term feeding of Bt-corn–a ten-generation study with quails. Arch Anim Nutr. 2005 Dec;59(6):449-51. PubMed PMID: 16429830. Impact Factor: 1.095.

3. Fonseca C, Planchon S, Renaut J, Oliveira MM, Batista R. Characterization of maize allergens – MON810 vs. its non-transgenic counterpart. J Proteomics. 2012 Apr 3;75(7):2027-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2012.01.005. Epub 2012 Jan 13. PubMed PMID: 22270010. Impact Factor: 4.088.

4. Gao MQ, Hou SP, Pu DQ, Shi M, Ye GY, Chen XX. Multi-generation effects of Bt rice on Anagrus nilaparvatae, a parasitoid of the nontarget pest Nilapavarta lugens. Environ Entomol. 2010 Dec;39(6):2039-44. doi: 10.1603/EN10035. PubMed PMID: 22182572. Impact Factor: 1.314.

5. Gizzarelli F, Corinti S, Barletta B, Iacovacci P, Brunetto B, Butteroni C, Afferni C, Onori R, Miraglia M, Panzini G, Di Felice G, Tinghino R.Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified soybean protein extract in a murine model of oral allergen-specific sensitization. Clin Exp Allergy. 2006 Feb;36(2):238-48. PubMed PMID: 16433863. Impact Factor: 4.789

6. Gregersen PL, Brinch-Pedersen H, Holm PB. A microarray-based comparative analysis of gene expression profiles during grain development in transgenic and wild type wheat. Transgenic Res. 2005 Dec;14(6):887-905. PubMed PMID: 16315094. Impact factor: 2.609.

7. Gruber H, Paul V, Meyer HH, Müller M. Determination of insecticidal Cry1Ab protein in soil collected in the final growing seasons of a nine-year field trial of Bt-maize MON810. Transgenic Res. 2012 Feb;21(1):77-88. doi: 10.1007/s11248-011-9509-7. Epub 2011 Apr 16. PubMed PMID: 21499757. Impact factor: 2.609.

8. Gruber H, Paul V, Guertler P, Spiekers H, Tichopad A, Meyer HH, Muller M. Fate of Cry1Ab protein in agricultural systems under slurry management of cows fed genetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) MON810: a quantitative assessment. J Agric Food Chem. 2011 Jul 13;59(13):7135-44. doi: 10.1021/jf200854n. Epub 2011 Jun 8. PubMed PMID: 21604675. Impact Factor: 2.906.

9. Huang F, Andow DA, Buschman LL.. Success of the high-dose/refuge resistance management strategy after 15 years of Bt crop use in North America. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 2011; 140:1–16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2011.01138.x. Impact Factor: 1.669.

10. Jenkins H, Hardy N, Beckmann M, Draper J, Smith AR, Taylor J, Fiehn O, Goodacre R, Bino RJ, Hall R, Kopka J, Lane GA, Lange BM, Liu JR, Mendes P, Nikolau BJ, Oliver SG, Paton NW, Rhee S, Roessner-Tunali U, Saito K, Smedsgaard J, Sumner LW, Wang T, Walsh S, Wurtele ES, Kell DB. A proposed framework for the description of plant metabolomics experiments and their results. Nat Biotechnol. 2004 Dec;22(12):1601-6. PubMed PMID: 15583675. Impact Factor: 32.438

11. Jia S, Wang F, Shi L, Yuan Q, Liu W, Liao Y, Li S, Jin W, Peng H. Transgene flow to hybrid rice and its male-sterile lines. Transgenic Res. 2007 Aug;16(4):491-501. Epub 2007 Apr 19. PubMed PMID: 17443417. Impact Factor: 2.609

12. Kiliç A, Akay MT. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar;46(3):1164-70. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2007.11.016. Epub 2007 Dec 5. PubMed PMID: 18191319. Impact Factor: 3.010

13. Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AA, Aarts HJ. Health considerations regarding horizontal transfer of microbial transgenes present in genetically modified crops. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2005;2005(4):326-52. PubMed PMID: 16489267; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1364539. Impact Factor: 2.880

14. Kleter GA, Bhula R, Bodnaruk K, Carazo E, Felsot AS, Harris CA, Katayama A, Kuiper HA, Racke KD, Rubin B, Shevah Y, Stephenson GR, Tanaka K, Unsworth J, Wauchope RD, Wong SS. Altered pesticide use on transgenic crops and the associated general impact from an environmental perspective. Pest Manag Sci. 2007 Nov;63(11):1107-15. Review. PubMed PMID: 17880042. Impact Factor: 2.594

15. Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AA. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE – binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Struct Biol. 2002 Dec 12;2:8. Epub 2002 Dec 12. PubMed PMID: 12477382; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC139984. Impact Factor: 2.099 (an extraordinarily high Impact Factor for a 2 year old journal).

16. Knudsen I, Poulsen M. Comparative safety testing of genetically modified foods in a 90-day rat feeding study design allowing the distinction between primary and secondary effects of the new genetic event. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007 Oct;49(1):53-62. PubMed PMID: 17719159. Impact Factor: 2.132

17. Kuiper HA, Noteborn HP, Peijnenburg AA. Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods. Lancet. 1999 Oct 16;354(9187):1315-6. PubMed PMID: 10533854. Impact Factor: 39.060

18. Kusano M, Redestig H, Hirai T, Oikawa A, Matsuda F, Fukushima A, Arita M, Watanabe S, Yano M, Hiwasa-Tanase K, Ezura H, Saito K.Covering chemical diversity of genetically-modified tomatoes using metabolomics for objective substantial equivalence assessment.PLoS One. 2011 Feb 16;6(2):e16989. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016989. PubMed PMID: 21359231; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3040210. Impact Factor: 3.710.

19. Le Gall G, DuPont MS, Mellon FA, Davis AL, Collins GJ, Verhoeyen ME, Colquhoun IJ. Characterization and content of flavonoid glycosides in genetically modified tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) fruits. J Agric Food Chem. 2003 Apr 23;51(9):2438-46. PubMed PMID: 12696918. Impact Factor: 2.906.

20. Le Gall G, Colquhoun IJ, Davis AL, Collins GJ, Verhoeyen ME. Metabolite profiling of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) using 1H NMR spectroscopy as a tool to detect potential unintended effects following a genetic modification. J Agric Food Chem. 2003 Apr 23;51(9):2447-56. Erratum in: J Agric Food Chem. 2004 May 19;52(10):3210. PubMed PMID: 12696919. Impact Factor: 2.906.

Don't see any human safety studies.

1. Lehesranta SJ, Davies HV, Shepherd LV, Nunan N, McNicol JW, Auriola S, Koistinen KM, Suomalainen S, Kokko HI, Kärenlampi SO.Comparison of tuber proteomes of potato varieties, landraces, and genetically modified lines. Plant Physiol. 2005 Jul;138(3):1690-9. Epub 2005 Jun 10. PubMed PMID: 15951487; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1176438. Impact Factor: 6.555

2. Li X, Huang K, He X, Zhu B, Liang Z, Li H, Luo Y. Comparison of nutritional quality between Chinese indica rice with sck and cry1Ac genes and its nontransgenic counterpart. J Food Sci. 2007 Aug;72(6):S420-4. PubMed PMID: 17995700. Impact Factor 1.775

3. Lutz B, Wiedemann S, Einspanier R, Mayer J, Albrecht C. Degradation of Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize in the bovine gastrointestinal tract. J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Mar 9;53(5):1453-6. PubMed PMID: 15740023. Impact Factor: 2.906.

4. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Biggiogera M, Quaglino D. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008 Nov;130(5):967-77. doi: 10.1007/s00418-008-0476-x. Epub 2008 Jul 22. PubMed PMID: 18648843. Impact Factor: 2.613

5. Malatesta M, Tiberi C, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Manuali E, Biggiogera M. Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. 2005 Jul-Sep;49(3):237-42. PubMed PMID: 16216809. Impact Factor: 2.412.

6. Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science. 2007 Jun 8;316(5830):1475-7. PubMed PMID: 17556584. Impact Factor: 31.027.

7. McCallum EJ, Cunningham JP, Lücker J, Zalucki MP, De Voss JJ, Botella JR. Increased plant volatile production affects oviposition, but not larval development, in the moth Helicoverpa armigera. J Exp Biol. 2011 Nov 1;214(Pt 21):3672-7. doi: 10.1242/jeb.059923. PubMed PMID: 21993797. Impact Factor: 3.236.

8. Mohanta RK, Singhal KK, Tyagi AK, Rajput YS, Prasad S. Nutritional evaluation of transgenic cottonseed in the ration of lactating dairy cows. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2010 Mar;42(3):431-8. doi: 10.1007/s11250-009-9439-z. Epub 2009 Aug 24. PubMed PMID: 19701795. Impact Factor: 1.09.

9. Momma K, Hashimoto W, Yoon HJ, Ozawa S, Fukuda Y, Kawai S, Takaiwa F, Utsumi S, Murata K. Safety assessment of rice genetically modified with soybean glycinin by feeding studies on rats. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2000 Sep;64(9):1881-6. PubMed PMID: 11055391. Impact Factor: 1.269

10. Montero M, Coll A, Nadal A, Messeguer J, Pla M. Only half the transcriptomic differences between resistant genetically modified and conventional rice are associated with the transgene. Plant Biotechnol J. 2011 Aug;9(6):693-702. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2010.00572.x. Epub 2010 Oct 29. PubMed PMID: 21040388. Impact Factor: 6.279

11. Nasir KH, Takahashi Y, Ito A, Saitoh H, Matsumura H, Kanzaki H, Shimizu T, Ito M, Fujisawa S, Sharma PC, Ohme-Takagi M, Kamoun S, Terauchi R. High-throughput in planta expression screening identifies a class II ethylene-responsive element binding factor-like protein that regulates plant cell death and non-host resistance. Plant J. 2005 Aug;43(4):491-505. PubMed PMID: 16098104. Impact Factor: 6.582.

12. Olson DM, Ruberson JR, Zeilinger AR, Andow DA. Colonization preference of Euschistus servus and Nezara viridula in transgenic cotton varieties, peanut, and soybean. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 2011;139: 161–169. DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2011.01116.x. Impact Factor: 1.669.

13. Paul V, Guertler P, Wiedemann S, Meyer HH. Degradation of Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize (MON810) in relation to total dietary feed proteins in dairy cow digestion. Transgenic Res. 2010 Aug;19(4):683-9. doi: 10.1007/s11248-009-9339-z. Epub 2009 Nov 4. PubMed PMID: 19888668; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2902738. Impact Factor: 2.609.

14. Peterson RK, Shama LM. A comparative risk assessment of genetically engineered, mutagenic, and conventional wheat production systems. Transgenic Res. 2005 Dec;14(6):859-75. PubMed PMID: 16315092. Impact Factor: 2.609

15. Phipps RH, Deaville ER, Maddison BC. Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2003 Dec;86(12):4070-8. PubMed PMID: 14740846. Impact Factor: 2.566

16. Powell M, Wheatley AO, Omoruyi F, Asemota HN, Williams NP, Tennant PF. Comparative effects of dietary administered transgenic and conventional papaya on selected intestinal parameters in rat models. Transgenic Res. 2010 Jun;19(3):511-8. doi: 10.1007/s11248-009-9317-5. Epub 2009 Aug 19. PubMed PMID: 19690973. Impact Factor: 2.609.

17. Qaim M. Benefits of genetically modified crops for the poor: household income, nutrition, and health. N Biotechnol. 2010 Nov 30;27(5):552-7. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2010.07.009. Epub 2010 Jul 17. Review. PubMed PMID: 20643233. Impact Factor: 2.338.

18. Ramessar K, Peremarti A, Gómez-Galera S, Naqvi S, Moralejo M, Muñoz P, Capell T, Christou P. Biosafety and risk assessment framework for selectable marker genes in transgenic crop plants: a case of the science not supporting the politics. Transgenic Res. 2007 Jun;16(3):261-80. Epub 2007 Apr 14. Review. PubMed PMID: 17436060. Impact Factor: 2.609

19. Reuter T, Aulrich K, Berk A, Flachowsky G. Investigations on genetically modified maize (Bt-maize) in pig nutrition: chemical composition and nutritional evaluation. Arch Tierernahr. 2002 Feb;56(1):23-31. PubMed PMID: 12389219.

20. Rhee GS, Cho DH, Won YH, Seok JH, Kim SS, Kwack SJ, Lee RD, Chae SY, Kim JW, Lee BM, Park KL, Choi KS. Multigeneration reproductive and developmental toxicity study of bar gene inserted into genetically modified potato on rats. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2005 Dec 10;68(23-24):2263-76. PubMed PMID: 16326439. Impact Factor: 1.733.

21. Rose R, Dively GP. Effects of insecticide-treated and Lepidopteran-active Bt transgenic sweet corn on the abundance and diversity of arthropods. Environ Entomol. 2007 Oct;36(5):1254-68. PubMed PMID: 18284751. Impact Factor: 1.314.

22. Rosati A, Bogani P, Santarlasci A, Buiatti M. Characterisation of 3' transgene insertion site and derived mRNAs in MON810 YieldGard maize. Plant Mol Biol. 2008 Jun;67(3):271-81. doi: 10.1007/s11103-008-9315-7. PubMed PMID: 18306044. Impact Factor: 3.518

23. Sakamoto Y, Tada Y, Fukumori N, Tayama K, Ando H, Takahashi H, Kubo Y, Nagasawa A, Yano N, Yuzawa K, Ogata A, Kamimura H. [A 52-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats]. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2007 Jun;48(3):41-50. Japanese. PubMed PMID: 17657996.

24. Sakamoto Y, Tada Y, Fukumori N, Tayama K, Ando H, Takahashi H, Kubo Y, Nagasawa A, Yano N, Yuzawa K, Ogata A. [A 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats]. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2008 Aug;49(4):272-82. Japanese. PubMed PMID: 18787312.

25. Sarkar B, Patra AK, Purakayastha TJ, Megharaj M. Assessment of biological and biochemical indicators in soil under transgenic Bt and non-Bt cotton crop in a sub-tropical environment. Environ Monit Assess. 2009 Sep;156(1-4):595-604. doi: 10.1007/s10661-008-0508-y. Epub 2008 Aug 22. PubMed PMID: 18720017. Impact Factor: 1.592.

26. Schnell J, Labbé H, Kovinich N, Manabe Y, Miki B. Comparability of imazapyr-resistant Arabidopsis created by transgenesis and mutagenesis. Transgenic Res. 2012 Dec;21(6):1255-64. doi: 10.1007/s11248-012-9597-z. Epub 2012 Mar 21. PubMed PMID: 22430369. Impact factor: 2.609.

27. Schrøder M, Poulsen M, Wilcks A, Kroghsbo S, Miller A, Frenzel T, Danier J, Rychlik M, Emami K, Gatehouse A, Shu Q, Engel KH, Altosaar I, Knudsen I. A 90-day safety study of genetically modified rice expressing Cry1Ab protein (Bacillus thuringiensis toxin) in Wistar rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Mar;45(3):339-49. Epub 2006 Sep 8. PubMed PMID: 17050059. Impact Factor: 3.010.

No human safety studies there.

1. Shelton AM, Zhao JZ, Roush RT. Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of bt transgenic plants. Annu Rev Entomol. 2002;47:845-81. Review. PubMed PMID: 11729093. Impact Factor: 13.589.

2. Shepherd LV, McNicol JW, Razzo R, Taylor MA, Davies HV. Assessing the potential for unintended effects in genetically modified potatoes perturbed in metabolic and developmental processes. Targeted analysis of key nutrients and anti-nutrients. Transgenic Res. 2006 Aug;15(4):409-25. PubMed PMID: 16906442. Impact factor: 2.609.

3. Sinagawa-García SR, Rascón-Cruz Q, Valdez-Ortiz A, Medina-Godoy S, Escobar-Gutiérrez A, Paredes-López O. Safety assessment by in vitro digestibility and allergenicity of genetically modified maize with an amaranth 11S globulin. J Agric Food Chem. 2004 May 5;52(9):2709-14. PubMed PMID: 15113180. Impact Factor: 2.906.

4. Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Mar;50(3-4):1134-48. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048. Epub 2011 Dec 3. Review. PubMed PMID: 22155268. Impact Factor: 3.010.

5. Sten E, Skov PS, Andersen SB, Torp AM, Olesen A, Bindslev-Jensen U, Poulsen LK, Bindslev-Jensen C. A comparative study of the allergenic potency of wild-type and glyphosate-tolerant gene-modified soybean cultivars. APMIS. 2004 Jan;112(1):21-8. PubMed PMID: 14961970. Impact Factor: 2.068

6. Tang M, Xie T, Cheng W, Qian L, Yang S, Yang D, Cui W, Li K. A 90-day safety study of genetically modified rice expressing rhIGF-1 protein in C57BL/6J rats. Transgenic Res. 2012 Jun;21(3):499-510. doi: 10.1007/s11248-011-9550-6. Epub 2011 Sep 11. Erratum in: Transgenic Res. 2012 Aug;21(4):927. PubMed PMID: 21910016. Impact Factor: 2.609.

7. Taylor J, King RD, Altmann T, Fiehn O. Application of metabolomics to plant genotype discrimination using statistics and machine learning. Bioinformatics. 2002;18 Suppl 2:S241-8. PubMed PMID: 12386008. Impact Factor: 3.024

8. Tian JC, Chen Y, Li ZL, Li K, Chen M, Peng YF, Hu C, Shelton AM, Ye GY. Transgenic Cry1Ab rice does not impact ecological fitness and predation of a generalist spider. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35164. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035164. Epub 2012 Apr 12. PubMed PMID: 22511982; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3325204. Impact Factor: 3.730.

9. Thigpen JE, Setchell KD, Saunders HE, Haseman JK, Grant MG, Forsythe DB. Selecting the appropriate rodent diet for endocrine disruptor research and testing studies. ILAR J. 2004;45(4):401-16. Review. PubMed PMID: 15454679. Impact Factor: 1.582

10. Tony MA, Butschke A, Broll H, Grohmann L, Zagon J, Halle I, Dänicke S, Schauzu M, Hafez HM, Flachowsky G. Safety assessment of Bt 176 maize in broiler nutrition: degradation of maize-DNA and its metabolic fate. Arch Tierernahr. 2003 Aug;57(4):235-52. PubMed PMID: 14533864.

11. Venneria E, Fanasca S, Monastra G, Finotti E, Ambra R, Azzini E, Durazzo A, Foddai MS, Maiani G. Assessment of the nutritional values of genetically modified wheat, corn, and tomato crops. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Oct 8;56(19):9206-14. doi: 10.1021/jf8010992. Epub 2008 Sep 10. PubMed PMID: 18781763. Impact Factor: 2.906

12. Vogler U, Rott AS, Gessler C, Dorn S. Terpene-mediated parasitoid host location behavior on transgenic and classically bred apple genotypes. J Agric Food Chem. 2009 Aug 12;57(15):6630-5. doi: 10.1021/jf901024y. PubMed PMID: 19722568. Impact Factor: 2.906.

13. von Burg S, van Veen FJ, Álvarez-Alfageme F, Romeis J. Aphid-parasitoid community structure on genetically modified wheat. Biol Lett. 2011 Jun 23;7(3):387-91. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.1147. Epub 2011 Jan 19. PubMed PMID: 21247941; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3097882. Impact Factor: 3.348.

14. Wakasa K, Hasegawa H, Nemoto H, Matsuda F, Miyazawa H, Tozawa Y, Morino K, Komatsu A, Yamada T, Terakawa T, Miyagawa H.High-level tryptophan accumulation in seeds of transgenic rice and its limited effects on agronomic traits and seed metabolite profile. J Exp Bot. 2006;57(12):3069-78. Epub 2006 Aug 14. PubMed PMID: 16908506. Impact Factor: 5.242.

15. Walsh MC, Buzoianu SG, Gardiner GE, Rea MC, Gelencsér E, Jánosi A, Epstein MM, Ross RP, Lawlor PG. Fate of transgenic DNA from orally administered Bt MON810 maize and effects on immune response and growth in pigs. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027177. Epub 2011 Nov 23. PubMed PMID: 22132091; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3223173. Impact Factor: 3.730.

16. Walsh MC, Buzoianu SG, Gardiner GE, Rea MC, Ross RP, Cassidy JP, Lawlor PG. Effects of short-term feeding of Bt MON810 maize on growth performance, organ morphology and function in pigs. Br J Nutr. 2012 Feb;107(3):364-71. doi: 10.1017/S0007114511003011. Impact Factor: 3.302.

17. Weekes R, Allnutt T, Boffey C, Morgan S, Bilton M, Daniels R, Henry C. A study of crop-to-crop gene flow using farm scale sites of fodder maize (Zea mays L.) in the UK. Transgenic Res. 2007 Apr;16(2):203-11. Epub 2006 Nov 11. Erratum in: Transgenic Res. 2008 Jun;17(3):477-8. PubMed PMID: 17115253. Impact Factor: 2.906.

18. Wiedemann S, Gürtler P, Albrecht C. Effect of feeding cows genetically modified maize on the bacterial community in the bovine rumen. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Dec;73(24):8012-7. Epub 2007 Oct 12. PubMed PMID: 17933942; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2168158. Impact Factor: 3.678.

19. Yuan Y, Xu W, Luo Y, Liu H, Lu J, Su C, Huang K. Effects of genetically modified T2A-1 rice on faecal microflora of rats during 90 day supplementation. J Sci Food Agric. 2011 Aug 30;91(11):2066-72. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4421. Epub 2011 Apr 26. PubMed PMID: 21520451. Impact Factor: 1.759.

20. Zeller SL, Kalinina O, Brunner S, Keller B, Schmid B. Transgene x environment interactions in genetically modified wheat. PLoS One. 2010 Jul 12;5(7):e11405. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011405. PubMed PMID: 20635001; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2902502. Impact Factor: 3.730.

21. Zhang J, Cai L, Cheng J, Mao H, Fan X, Meng Z, Chan KM, Zhang H, Qi J, Ji L, Hong Y. Transgene integration and organization in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genome. Transgenic Res. 2008 Apr;17(2):293-306. Epub 2007 Jun 5. PubMed PMID: 17549600. Impact Factor: 2.906

22. Zhu Y, Li D, Wang F, Yin J, Jin H. Nutritional assessment and fate of DNA of soybean meal from roundup ready or conventional soybeans using rats. Arch Anim Nutr. 2004 Aug;58(4):295-310. PubMed PMID: 15570744. Impact Factor: 1.095.

23. Zolla L, Rinalducci S, Antonioli P, Righetti PG. Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications. J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61. doi: 10.1021/pr0705082. Epub 2008 Apr 5. PubMed PMID: 18393457. Impact Factor: 5.056

24. Zywicki B, Catchpole G, Draper J, Fiehn O. Comparison of rapid liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry methods for determination of glycoalkaloids in transgenic field-grown potatoes. Anal Biochem. 2005 Jan 15;336(2):178-86. PubMed PMID: 15620882. Impact Factor: 2.582.

Nope, no human safety studies in any of those.

So which one is the human safety study?

Waiting for the citation of the human safety study.

Came here for adamwho. Was not disappointed.

Sampling of the scientific consensus

A statement from The National Academy of Science assement of GMO safety

A statement from The American Association for the Advancement of Science's statement (pdf)

A statement from the American Medical Association

A statement from the very anti-GMO European Commission saying GMOs are safe

A statement from the Royal Society of Medicine

Lets be honest about this.

If you really cared about evidence would you be posting in /r/conspiracy?

So that's what they taught you to do when I ask the right question? Just flood the thread with other Monsanto studies on rats and various irrelevant things?

what they taught you to do

Who is this "they" that taught /u/adamwho to do something?

His teachers.

No, his handlers and GMO bosses. His credibility is lacking in every regard. His use of multiple accounts to back himself up is also proven.

I responded to a moron with the evidence they asked for.

Just going off the first link you posted, the AAAS is a non-profit organization, and you can find their form 990 here. In only 2011 they received nearly $20 million in government grants. You don't think that there is any chance they printed the results the government wants them to print? Even for $20 million dollars?

Cigarettes were proven safe. By big tobacco. Hmmm.

One giant argument from authority. Also you're trying to bombard me with your massive copy pasta. Are any of those applicable to my question or are they simply studies about gmos?

I was particularly fond of the one about mouse testicles. Its applicability to humans was... astounding.

Have you ever wondered why scientists even do animal studies at all? I mean, if animal biology is completely irrelevant to human biology, it must all be a huge waste of time and money right?

Not my point.

My point is... why are they doing studies on how GMOs impact mouse testicles.

Let's get a bit broader, please?

Maybe you don't understand the difference between argument from expertise and authority.

The articles I posted are from people who are experts. I didn't cite them because they were "authorities".

They are not even right because they are experts but because they have evidence which any qualified person can verify.

Scientists who recomended DDT and cigarettes were experts. How much do they pay you? I need a new job.

Where's Mr. Vargyr? He needs to come out to play and back you up.

/r/askscience would be appropriate, but of course they are all part of the "gmo tard" conspiracy and all of the studies that they could possibly cite or that you've cited here will be deemed to have "conflicts of interest" or not be "long term enough" or will ignore the scientific and medical value of animal studies.

You're aware that standard practice is funding a bunch of studies and then picking the ones you want to publish, right? Also outsourcing the studies to companies who conduct the trials over seas, out of sight. Also, there is a good reason that the FDA is in bed with Monsanto. That isn't even argued, that's just a fact.

Also, any published studies that find harmful effects from lifetime rat studies are "bad science," but 90 day trials by Monsanto are "scientifically sound." http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1896115

It's just a giant reputation game. If someone disagrees with big industry, they aren't credible. If your study will make Monsanto money, you're a smart good scientist.

You're aware that standard practice is funding a bunch of studies and then picking the ones you want to publish, right?

I'm not aware of that. Can you tell me more about that?

Also, any published studies that find harmful effects from lifetime rat studies are "bad science,"

Can you give me some examples of times that this has happened? That well-structured, statistically valid, properly controlled experimental studies of a falsifiable hypothesis, published in a respected peer-reviewed journal has been deemed "bad science" by (who again?).

Hey, you're a scientist about to conduct an unbiased study on the safety of GMO. I'm coming to your house. I'm going to give you a million dollars to falsify a study, a million which is chump change to me because I stand to make billions off of your "conclusive study" that GMO is safe. Catch my drift? Your study will conclude that they are safe. Oh, and I want it to be well-structured, statistically valid, properly controlled, peer-reviewed, yadda yadda yadda... make it happen. If you don't, I'll just hire someone to kill you. So how would you like that million? Check or cash ;)

I'm not even saying this is a conspiracy, or even a bad thing, it's just how the world works, especially when you're on the level of powerhouses like monsanto. Your ignorance and naivety is hilarious, dummy.

Cherrypicking is a violation of good scientific research practices. It's not routine. A few years back Pfizer got caught doing it with Celebrex and it was huge news.

Your response literally added nothing. And yes, it is routine.

yes, it is routine.

Prove it.

Prove it isn't. Why do you assume things are legitimate when billions of dollars are involved? You must not be very alpha, in fact you're totally a beta, perhaps gamma person. You think we live in some cookie cutter world, where no one breaks laws and everything is done through the proper channels. Laughable. There are people who are willing to murder for a few thousand dollars... what do you think happens when their are billions at stake? If someone offered me 20 million to do something, there are very few things I wouldn't do, and you're the same way, and so are your infallible "scientists".

You must not be very alpha, in fact you're totally a beta, perhaps gamma person.

I have no idea what that means. Is it some secret society conspiracy theory talk?

It means you like dicks in and around your mouth. Just like your dad.

Anti-gay bigotry. Keep it classy, jackass.

How is that anti gay? I see nothing wrong with your lifestyle choice! Also I love how when you don't have a response to me exposing your wrong-ness, you just pick some insignificant point to dwell on. Good luck with that!

No amount of evidence EVER convinces the conspiracy theorist. They alone are able to discern the truth. This is the trap they are stuck in.

Seriously: when have you ever seen a conspiracy theorist say "wow you are right, the evidence completely refutes my belief"?

When they do a human safety study we will shut up. It has never been done and will never be done.

Yes. I'd assume at least half of the people who spend 8 hours per day on reddit doing nothing but "killing the GMO myths" work for the companies they care so much about. It's hard to fathom another reason for that type of behavior, so I figured I would ask to see their cool badges.

When they do a human safety study we will shut up. It has never been done and will never be done.

Your the one thats extra long test periods, not me.

And science to you is? The same science used to prove radiation was safe? Healing crystals? Not quite? An open eyes and objective viewpoint of everything I encounter and/or seek. Strangely so foreign to people auxh as yourself.