Only citizens of countries in which the Queen is monarch can use "Sir". Eg. Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bono Recounts Fight With Steve Jobs Over (Product) RED Branding, Urges Apple to Do More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Only citizens of countries in which the Queen is monarch can use "Sir". Eg. Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.
This was already addressed a few pages back.
----------
Well, skin me alive and call me luggage. Indeed I did. I'll watch for that in the future.
Again, NOT TRUE. This is what I'm talking about. Misinformation that people latch on to and then turn into zealots for hating on a guy under false pretenses.
http://fortune.com/2012/05/18/no-facebook-did-not-make-bono-worlds-richest-musician/
(Don't get me wrong though, he's not exactly hurting.
)
Well aren't you witty, boy.
That isn't the point. My point was adding the name (RED) on a product isn't going to increase awareness in any meaningful way.
Again, NOT TRUE. This is what I'm talking about. Misinformation that people latch on to and then turn into zealots for hating on a guy under false pretenses.
http://fortune.com/2012/05/18/no-facebook-did-not-make-bono-worlds-richest-musician/
(Don't get me wrong though, he's not exactly hurting.
There's more to it than his business venture if you dig deeper. This is only a small pot of what he owns/owned in Facebook. Thanks though. Keep looking and what you will find is quite wild, and true, about how he came upon most of it.
And the reason I don't care for him is multiple fold, from fleecing people under the guise of a "cause" to a plethora of much smaller reasons.
He doesn't owe you an explanation. You're not in any position to demand anything.
----------
I'm far more likely to buy a red product if it doesn't have the logo on it. I don't flaunt my charitable donations.
We already addressed my using that word specifically. See a few pages back. Cheers.
I didn't get a notice about this reply which is full of unmitigated ignorance.
GMOs don't improve crop yields. GMO crops were not invented to increase crop yields-they were invented by Monsanto so farmers could spray their glyphosphate (roundup) in massive quantities without killing the plant.
This increased sales of roundup obviously and has also led to super weeds that can't be killed and roundup itself is now linked to kidney problems and autism, not to mention hurting the soil.
GMOs contain foreign DNA never before found in food products. The result?
A massive increase in food allergies, degenerative diseases, cancer, and more.
Do some research before spouting nonsense.
Feel free to provide citations to back up your claims. Do us a favor and don't include links to the silly sites. Stick to legit scientific organizations. I've read plenty of sources regarding GMOs and have attended lectures about them as well. You?
P.S. Monsanto is just one of MANY seed companies that develop GMO seeds so your primary argument is already invalid.
I'd like some sources on that, all of that. Some of that sounds plausible, and some of it just sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense.
Here's a great chart a guy made illustrating the dangers of confusing correlation with causality:
SOURCE: http://io9.com/on-correlation-causation-and-the-real-cause-of-auti-1494972271
Everybody is desperate to find a cause for autism. I've read articles that say it's vaccinations, eating too much high fructose corn syrup, cosmetics, pet flea shampoos, antibacterial soap, etc. etc. Crap pseudoscience for desperate people.
Here's an excellent article from the NYTimes. It's long but it lays it all out pretty well regarding how hard it is to get people to focus on real facts and repeatable science when all they really want to do is be fearful and outraged:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/on-hawaii-a-lonely-quest-for-facts-about-gmos.html?hp&_r=0
There are so many studies I would be here all day. Here are just a few:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/documents/huber-glyphosates-2009.pdf
http://organicconsumers.org/documents/report_on_animals_exposed_to_gmos.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bartolotto/have-genetically-modified_b_5597751.html
http://www.alternet.org/food/major-...138978.hyC3ML&rd=1&src=newsletter1010773&t=12
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-study-links-gmo-food-leukemia
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html
http://rt.com/usa/toxic-study-gmo-corn-900/
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5296.cfm
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may2014/farmers-report-better-animal-health-non-gmo-feed.php
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/toxin-from-gm-crops-found-in-human-blood/1/137728.html
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/print/
Ok, here's my dissection of your "data":
http://www.organicconsumers.org/documents/huber-glyphosates-2009.pdf
This paper has a lot of "may have" statements and no actual test findings. It's someone giving their opinions, not actually testing anything. It also says nothing about GMOs harming people.
--------
http://organicconsumers.org/documents/report_on_animals_exposed_to_gmos.pdf
This study was only to determine whether an animal that ate GMO food was different than one that didn't. He didn't actually test anything but summarized other people's reports and admits they aren't balanced by reports that said NO dna was different. He says there are studies that say they are different and not enough studies to say they aren't so he can't say for sure if a chicken can be called GMO-free if it ate GMO feed. And he specifically says he WAS NOT asked to determine whether it was a bad thing if the animal WAS different if it ate GMO feed.
_________
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bartolotto/have-genetically-modified_b_5597751.html
This is an opinion piece by a dietician, not a food scientist and simply claims the myriad of animal tests that say GMOs are safe aren't enough for her to believe they are safe for humans. Which is funny because so many people cling to the results of that one debunked animal study to say they ARE bad. Guess the routine use of animal testing for centuries has been a total waste of time...
-----------
http://www.alternet.org/food/major-...138978.hyC3ML&rd=1&src=newsletter1010773&t=12
And here's the infamous debunked Seralini rat study. At least he now admits no definitive conclusions can be made from the results. Amazing how no one has EVER replicated his results, huh? Reproduceability is the definition of the scientific method.
-------------
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-study-links-gmo-food-leukemia
All this study says is that more testing might be needed. I have no idea what Bt spore crystals are so I have no idea how this relates to humans eating GMO products. Seems like one of those "let's see if forcing a huge amount of something in a rat causes anything bad to happen." study. Which is a typical method for initially studying the toxicity of something because if a mega dose of something doesn't kill a rat, a regular dose won't hurt a human. But if a mega dose DOES cause something to happen, it just means more tests are needed before you can extrapolate to normal doses in a relatively huge human.
-----------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html
Same debunked study as listed above
---------------------
http://rt.com/usa/toxic-study-gmo-corn-900/
A mystery study "unearthed" by the only non-GMO corn seed company in Canada. Sounds legit, lol. Too bad there are no links to the study so I could evaluate the validity.
--------------------
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5296.cfm
Another opinion piece with a whole lot of "may"s and "might"s. Not science.
-----------------------------
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may2014/farmers-report-better-animal-health-non-gmo-feed.php
A few farmers have opinions. Not science.
----------------------
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/toxin-from-gm-crops-found-in-human-blood/1/137728.html
This study is actually interesting but the sample size is very small, 69 women. I would think there would have been more studies after 2011 on this.
-----------------------
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/print/[/QUOTE]
Same debunked Seralini study as listed twice above.
Man, you would think there would be more than a couple negative studies in the what, 15, 20 years GMOs have existed. When you have multiple websites all repeating the same stuff, it SEEMS like more "evidence" than it really is.
I like what Neil deGrasse Tyson says here: http://youtu.be/1ecT2CaL7NA
Lots of info here: https://www.facebook.com/RightToKnowMinnesotaTheTruth
http://www.organicconsumers.org/documents/huber-glyphosates-2009.pdf
This paper has a lot of "may have" statements and no actual test findings. It's someone giving their opinions, not actually testing anything. It also says nothing about GMOs harming people.
--------
http://organicconsumers.org/documents/report_on_animals_exposed_to_gmos.pdf
This study was only to determine whether an animal that ate GMO food was different than one that didn't. He didn't actually test anything but summarized other people's reports and admits they aren't balanced by reports that said NO dna was different. He says there are studies that say they are different and not enough studies to say they aren't so he can't say for sure if a chicken can be called GMO-free if it ate GMO feed. And he specifically says he WAS NOT asked to determine whether it was a bad thing if the animal WAS different if it ate GMO feed.
_________
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bartolotto/have-genetically-modified_b_5597751.html
This is an opinion piece by a dietician, not a food scientist and simply claims the myriad of animal tests that say GMOs are safe aren't enough for her to believe they are safe for humans. Which is funny because so many people cling to the results of that one debunked animal study to say they ARE bad. Guess the routine use of animal testing for centuries has been a total waste of time...
-----------
http://www.alternet.org/food/major-...138978.hyC3ML&rd=1&src=newsletter1010773&t=12
And here's the infamous debunked Seralini rat study. At least he now admits no definitive conclusions can be made from the results. Amazing how no one has EVER replicated his results, huh? Reproduceability is the definition of the scientific method.
-------------
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-study-links-gmo-food-leukemia
All this study says is that more testing might be needed. I have no idea what Bt spore crystals are so I have no idea how this relates to humans eating GMO products. Seems like one of those "let's see if forcing a huge amount of something in a rat causes anything bad to happen." study. Which is a typical method for initially studying the toxicity of something because if a mega dose of something doesn't kill a rat, a regular dose won't hurt a human. But if a mega dose DOES cause something to happen, it just means more tests are needed before you can extrapolate to normal doses in a relatively huge human.
-----------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html
Same debunked study as listed above
---------------------
http://rt.com/usa/toxic-study-gmo-corn-900/
A mystery study "unearthed" by the only non-GMO corn seed company in Canada. Sounds legit, lol. Too bad there are no links to the study so I could evaluate the validity.
--------------------
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5296.cfm
Another opinion piece with a whole lot of "may"s and "might"s. Not science.
-----------------------------
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may2014/farmers-report-better-animal-health-non-gmo-feed.php
A few farmers have opinions. Not science.
----------------------
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/toxin-from-gm-crops-found-in-human-blood/1/137728.html
This study is actually interesting but the sample size is very small, 69 women. I would think there would have been more studies after 2011 on this.
-----------------------
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/print/[/QUOTE]
Same debunked Seralini study as listed twice above.
Man, you would think there would be more than a couple negative studies in the what, 15, 20 years GMOs have existed. When you have multiple websites all repeating the same stuff, it SEEMS like more "evidence" than it really is.
I like what Neil deGrasse Tyson says here: http://youtu.be/1ecT2CaL7NA
Lots of info here: https://www.facebook.com/RightToKnowMinnesotaTheTruth
Last edited:
So basically you were going to refute every study I gave links to, which I suspected.
The Seralini Study was re-validated by the way. I'm sure you knew that already, guess it wasn't worth it for you to say so.
Pig studies are completely valid since their digestive system is similar to ours, which I'm sure you knew but didn't think anyone else would.
My advice to you is to get a new job. If you own Monsanto stock, and I'm sure you do, sell it.
Monsanto has been banned in most countries it has tried to invade. Putin said there is no way he will allow Russia's food supply to be tainted by GMO toxins. Poland has burned all corn GMO crops, and on and on.
Our corrupt politicians would take money from satan so it's up to the people to make it happen and it is.
Once GMOs are labeled that's the end of Monsanto, which is why they are spending so much money to defeat labeling efforts.
It WILL happen, and your beloved Monsanto will be exposed along with all the politicians, like Obama, and the Clintons.
Tyson is a moron. Comparing hybrids to GMOs makes no sense. Combining the traits of 2 apples in the field to create a different apple is obviously not the same as aplicing soil organisms and e. coli into GMO corn to make it pesticide resistant and causing insect insides to explode.
GMO bt corn is registered as a pesticide.
The Seralini Study was re-validated by the way. I'm sure you knew that already, guess it wasn't worth it for you to say so.
Pig studies are completely valid since their digestive system is similar to ours, which I'm sure you knew but didn't think anyone else would.
My advice to you is to get a new job. If you own Monsanto stock, and I'm sure you do, sell it.
Monsanto has been banned in most countries it has tried to invade. Putin said there is no way he will allow Russia's food supply to be tainted by GMO toxins. Poland has burned all corn GMO crops, and on and on.
Our corrupt politicians would take money from satan so it's up to the people to make it happen and it is.
Once GMOs are labeled that's the end of Monsanto, which is why they are spending so much money to defeat labeling efforts.
It WILL happen, and your beloved Monsanto will be exposed along with all the politicians, like Obama, and the Clintons.
Tyson is a moron. Comparing hybrids to GMOs makes no sense. Combining the traits of 2 apples in the field to create a different apple is obviously not the same as aplicing soil organisms and e. coli into GMO corn to make it pesticide resistant and causing insect insides to explode.
GMO bt corn is registered as a pesticide.
Ha! You're a right-winger. Not surprising, considering your level of science paranoia. Of course I was going to rebut your links. If they can't stand up to my rebuttals, how valid are they? It's like Fox News spouting nonsense and being mad other channels point out all the lies and distortions.
The Seralini study was republished in a different journal, Environmental Sciences Europe. No further peer review was done because that other journal didn't think it was necessary so, no, it wasn't actually validated. He also changed his results to INCONCLUSIVE (according to one of your citations), which I DID state in my last post. Again, why hasn't anyone duplicated his results? Not sure why you brought up pigs, since he used rats. A rat strain that tend to easily get tumors naturally over their 2 year lifespan (80% in males, 70% in females), which is the main bone of contention with his study along with small sample size. The longer these rats are used to study a substance, the more likely a tumor develops naturally and you can't tell what actually caused them. Seralini started the study as an anti-GMO-er and chose conditions that would get the results he wanted. Then he swore people involved to secrecy when the study was released (along with a book and movie to sell, btw). Not exactly the most transparent way to release real scientific findings, huh?
My job is a freelance motion graphics designer, although I used to be a chemical engineer which is why I can discern good science from bad. I changed careers after an economic layoff in the 90s and wanted a career I could do on my own without corporate BS.
Before you claim my having an allegiance to seed genetics, I was an engineer in the development of polymer catalysts, paper towels and cosmetics. I DON'T own any stock in GMOs (unless my mutual funds have it and I don't know it). I simply can't stand people who repeat fake science and fear mongering because they impede advancements that will help us all and even worse, cause people to die of diseases they could have been vaccinated against or starving because climate change has made their land too poor to farm UNLESS drought/pest/weed-resistant GMOs are created and used.
The countries that banned GMOs did so for political reasons, not scientific reasons. But go ahead, side with Putin, lol. Most crops grown in Russia don't have GM variations available anyway so it's easy for him to say that. Ever consider he doesn't want GMOs in Russia because that would be supporting American business? Did you know Russia was looking into creating their own biotech industry?
Snopes.com covered your "Bt corn insecticide/exploding insect guts" bs already. Did you know Bt is naturally occuring? It also covers that Canada study about the women that you cited:
http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/monsantocorn.asp
This whole thing will eventually blow over just like the same uproar over irradiating meat years ago.
Here's a page listing many of the biotech companies working on GMOs. They are all over the world:
http://www.biofortified.org/resources/genetic-engineering-companies/
I actually worked 3 days as a Powerpoint operator at meeting at a Syngenta GMO development farm a couple years ago. Learned a lot about how GMOs are developed, what world problems they solve and why they are needed. They discussed how climate change is ruining farmlands and how the seeds will help. There were no evil plots being discussed. You would have learned a few things. I also worked a meeting for Stanford University alumni. In one segment, they had a professor (can't remember their area but it related to International Health and Welfare) and the president of Second Harvest food bank talking about the status of world hunger. Someone in the audience asked their opinion about GMOs and they were both FOR them wholeheartedly.
Last edited:
Why would a right winger be against GMOs? Most Republicans in congress are for anything that makes money.
I'm an independent, I've voted for Democrats and Republicans, whomever seems to be the best candidate.
You are obviously hooked on the premise that humans can ingest anything and be fine. GMOs are not natural and have not been produced in nature and contain DNA not found in any naturally grown produce.
GMO feed has been shown to harm the livestock and many farmers are turning away from them.
GMO's are toxic. GMOs do not increase crop yields. GMO crops are heavily sprayed with roundup, which in turn harms the soil and is creating superweeds.
Monsanto is going down, and I'm looking forward to it.
I'm an independent, I've voted for Democrats and Republicans, whomever seems to be the best candidate.
You are obviously hooked on the premise that humans can ingest anything and be fine. GMOs are not natural and have not been produced in nature and contain DNA not found in any naturally grown produce.
GMO feed has been shown to harm the livestock and many farmers are turning away from them.
GMO's are toxic. GMOs do not increase crop yields. GMO crops are heavily sprayed with roundup, which in turn harms the soil and is creating superweeds.
Monsanto is going down, and I'm looking forward to it.
When someone ACTUALLY proves GMOs are bad, I'll get right on board.
Everything you continue to claim has been debunked already. I know it's hard to keep up but you really need to try. Why you are so laser-focused on Monsanto is beyond me.
scientific studies about crop yields:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5608/900.short
"Onfarm field trials carried out with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton in different states of India show that the technology substantially reduces pest damage and increases yields. The yield gains are much higher than what has been reported for other countries where genetically modified crops were used mostly to replace and enhance chemical pest control. In many developing countries, small-scale farmers especially suffer big pest-related yield losses because of technical and economic constraints. Pest-resistant genetically modified crops can contribute to increased yields and agricultural growth in those situations, as the case of Bt cotton in India demonstrates."
Effect on environment and farm $:
http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15-brookes.htm
"The analysis shows that there have been substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to a cumulative total of $27 billion. The technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 172 million kg and has reduced the environmental footprint associated with pesticide use by 14%. The technology has also significantly reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, which is equivalent to removing five million cars from the roads."
An article that explains why you will see some reports that say crop yields are no different and other studies that say GMOs have better yields:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gmo-crops-higher-yield-depends-answer/
an excerpt:
"A recently published communication in Nature Biotechnology shows that GMO corn sometimes has higher and sometimes lower yields than conventionally bred corn, if you ignore all confounding factors in the environment. In years where GM corn was producing similar or lower yields than conventionally bred corn, the environmental factors, such as weather, disease or pests, were average. When accounting for the bad environmental situations, GM corn had significantly greater yields.
In other words, semantics matter. Using the UCS definition of yield, which just looks at a single plant and ignores all other factors, GMO corn has no advantage. But in the real world of agriculture, the yield can be larger, sometimes quite a bit larger, under real world conditions that include a whole host of environmental challenges for the plant.
The point is that the value of GMO crops should not be underestimated, and the semantics can change how we value these crops. A real skeptic looks at the evidence for the value of the GMO crops (seems positive) while examining the evidence for the health risks (there is just nothing out there that scientifically supports any health issues with GM crops)the scientific conclusion remains the same that GMO crops have a large positive benefit to mankind.
I know that a lot of hatred of GMO crops is pointed at Monsanto, which is one of the larger marketers of GM crops. But since many of the comments about Monsanto are strawman arguments or are intentionally poisoning the well, logical fallacies that are laughably similar to the arguments made about Big Pharma and vaccines, its hard to accept them. There are some arguments about GM crops that have some validity. Biodiversity is one that is concerning, but that can be overcome with small, sustainable farms that are willing to produce genetically diverse crops, which will attract a higher price from consumers who want them. But in a crowded world with less and less fertile farmland, it is important that yields be increased, and that may always require genetic manipulationsomething that was done 10,000 years ago to get us the first domesticated corn."
Manipulation done 10,000 years ago was natural, not in the lab.
I can debunk all of your links and then I'm sure you can find a biotech funded study that supposedly debunks mine.
Monsanto is the target because they are the largest and their aim is to control the worlds food supply-I suppose you think that's a good thing as well.
Their aim was never to increase crop yields, it was to enable farmers to spray roundup at will without harming the plant, thus increasing sales of roundup as well.
Monsanto will sue a farmer if a GMO farm next door's seeds are blown over and polluting that farm with GMO seeds. The farmer is sued for patent infringement, even though they never wanted that toxic crap in the first place. They have been very successful at it until recently.
Farmers not using Monsanto's sterile seeds could always re=plant seeds, Monsanto farmers are bound to Monsanto for their food supply. This is Monsanto's aim.
As for India's cotton, I'm sure you have heard about the high suicide rate among Indian farmers who got sucked into the Monsanto vortex.
They aren't called Monsatan for nothing.
The world will be a better place with them out of business
I can debunk all of your links and then I'm sure you can find a biotech funded study that supposedly debunks mine.
Monsanto is the target because they are the largest and their aim is to control the worlds food supply-I suppose you think that's a good thing as well.
Their aim was never to increase crop yields, it was to enable farmers to spray roundup at will without harming the plant, thus increasing sales of roundup as well.
Monsanto will sue a farmer if a GMO farm next door's seeds are blown over and polluting that farm with GMO seeds. The farmer is sued for patent infringement, even though they never wanted that toxic crap in the first place. They have been very successful at it until recently.
Farmers not using Monsanto's sterile seeds could always re=plant seeds, Monsanto farmers are bound to Monsanto for their food supply. This is Monsanto's aim.
As for India's cotton, I'm sure you have heard about the high suicide rate among Indian farmers who got sucked into the Monsanto vortex.
They aren't called Monsatan for nothing.
The world will be a better place with them out of business
Good grief, the Indian suicide rate lie:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2014/03/gm-crops-indian-farmers-and-suicide
http://io9.com/the-gmo-mass-suicides-are-a-myth-1565342067
People have been manipulating plants and animal genetics all along history, along with Mother Nature. The fact we have gotten really precise about it is a good thing. You need to watch fewer sci-fi movies about the big bad scientists set on destroying the world. Do you also hate that medicine development is done in the lab rather than being an accidental mold in a petri dish like it used to be?
please, attempt to debunk my links. This off-track thread will probably get shut down soon so you better hurry.
Last edited:
People have been manipulating them but not with foreign DNA.
You very well know that, but you're into chemicals and think there is absolutely zero harm, which is patently absurd.
Show me one long term study proving GMOs are safe. There are none. The longest study Monsanto performed was 90 days, which is a long term study if we are fruit flies
You very well know that, but you're into chemicals and think there is absolutely zero harm, which is patently absurd.
Show me one long term study proving GMOs are safe. There are none. The longest study Monsanto performed was 90 days, which is a long term study if we are fruit flies
I love how you are always assuming my attitude about things and then insulting my imaginary attitude. Kind of mirrors your knowledge of GMOs. Not with foreign DNA huh? How do you think we made mules? Different species, with different numbers of chromosomes, combined.
BTW-Long-term studies are defined as studies over 90 days.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.
----------------------
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
----------------------
GMOs have been around since 1996 and literally thousands of studies and tests have been conducted on them by people for and against.