Quote:
Monsanto has squashed all American testing of their GM foods. France, the country Americans tend to joke about, is the only one with the cajones to publish a report. The ag colleges in the great U.S.A. tremble in fear that Monsanto will withdraw their large financial donations. Any reports that have been produced here are pro-Monsanto because they are written by Monsanto, and then they get some high-up professor at an ag college to sign it.


One cannot assume bias in "Any reports that have been produced here" unless one can return the theme and point out that the study cited was financed by Greenpeace and published in one of the least well established journals.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/13/gm-corn-leads-to-organ-failure-not-so-fast/

It also has to be noted that the conclusions drawn by the study authors is that:

Quote:
In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.


Clearly even the authors do not consider their own study to be conclusive or definitive.

Of course, in the typical rush to provide simple, easy to understand, and actionable conclusions the trend is to characterize GM foods as either good or bad. As if we might stop growing roses because they have thorns or stop cultivation of potatoes because when green they can be toxic if eaten uncooked.

GM crops are not so simply understood or characterized. In the end, even if the GM corn was shown to be in some way and to some extent toxic (one study does not amount to a firm conclusion) the question would be to characterize degree and aggregate effect. It is well known and understood that the pesticides, herbicides and fungicides that GM crops seek to avoid the use of are not without toxicity, even if properly used.

The statement that GM corn may be toxic may not be reason enough to avoid them. GM crops may be the more favorable choice if the alleged toxicity turned out to be less than the known and well established results of the use of chemical products typically used to bring non-GM crop to harvest.