Jon, I'm not trying to pick a fight but there are studies regarding Monsanto practices that concern me. Here's one.
In bT corn (the largest GMO crop...80-90% of US corn is GMO modified) a gene from a bT bacteria is inserted into the DNA of a corn molecule that is used to produce corn seed. This gene produces a chemical that acts on an enzyme in the gut of the worms that eat corn and kills them. Montsanto claims that it is not harmful to humans because we don't have that particular enzyme. The FDA does no testing on its own. It relies on tests done by the corporations. Monsanto has not tested bT corn on mammals nor had anyone else until recently. A study recently came out, double blinded with controls, in which pigs were raised on bT vs non-bT corn for 6 mos. until slaughter weight. Once slaughtered, their tissues were examined for many things rumored to be caused by GMO feed. They tested negative for most disorders (such as cancer) but the bT pigs had inflamed stomachs and the females had uterus that were twice the size of the controls.
There have been consistent reports of reduced fertility in animals fed bT corn and this study supports that.
http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31
This article is a review of multiple studies of the safety of bt crops. It has been published by the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Statewide Biotechnology Workgroup on their website, ucbiotech.org.
I just chose this study from a Google search, "bt corn safety", because it was the first item to come up in the search that was published by a public, educational, not-for-profit source that considered multiple studies conducted using the scientific method and published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals.
The results of a single study can be troubling, to be sure, but they should only be considered preliminary until other organizations have repeated the process using the same methods as described by the original investigators and obtained the same results. Investigators who won't reveal methods (not saying this is the case with the study you reference) or won't publish full results should be considered suspicious - peer-review is a protective check for all of us to make sure that the results of scientific studies stand up to scrutiny.
I remember when I was in college a team of scientists reported results of a study showing "cold fusion" as a potential way of safely, cleanly, and cheaply producing electricity. It was incredibly exciting. Because they followed the scientific method other labs quickly replicated their procedures - and none were able to reproduce the results. Cold fusion was a bust - but the whole thing used the scientific method, including peer review and replication of testing procedures. Unlike many of the things you can find on the web advertising "methods" to create limitless energy that don't publish methods or results but instead insist those things must be kept secret because government/big industry is trying to suppress the advances, the cold fusion investigation was transparent; it was sad to those of excited about the potential the process seemed to hold, but it was on the up-and-up.
In the same way, evaluating the safety of products of the food or drug industry needs to follow the same rigor. The results of single studies that raise alarms need to be investigated and the investigations replicated. Then variations in the processes should also be studied, because in drugs and food safety, the dose makes the poison. Was the study you mention about the results of ingestion of bt corn representing a toxic dose? Would the results be the same if realistic daily consumption were studied instead? It is important to study multiple doses to reveal the point at which a substance becomes toxic. The study I quoted above seems to indicate that the bt gene that is inserted in corn produces a protein that is very quickly broken down during the normal process of digestion, which then makes it a non-issue. Is there a point at which the dose of that protein will no longer be 100% broken down by digestion, creating the potential for toxicity? Maybe so - maybe that's the point that the study you mention has discovered.
We, as consumers, SHOULD absolutely be skeptical about the safety of our food. But to be educated consumers it is IMPERATIVE that we educate ourselves on how to read and understand research into that food safety. We need to not just read the results of research but also understand the basic questions about it: who is conducting the studies? Why are they being conducted? Is academic rigor being applied? Are the materials and methods available to other researchers to validate the research? Are the full results available for analysis by other investigators? Is the information being presented to the scientific community or is it being released to the public without peer review?
With the rampant growth of the human population (projected to be at almost 10 billion by 2050 and 11 billion by 2100 - UN statistics), we have to be doing what we can to improve agricultural yield at the same time we do what we can to protect the environment. It's a difficult balance. If we assume that our values as a species place importance on preserving human life globally, then we have to be prepared to continue to feed the population at the same rate it grows. That includes taking agricultural infrastructure worldwide - at some point the existing arable land will reach capacity and new places will have to be developed. It also makes more sense to take agriculture to the growing populations instead of just transporting food. My point in this is that without research to increase crop yields and to produce crops that can exist in a greater variety of world environments famine will be a routine part of our world situation. We won't be able to have Live Aid-type concerts to address famine in relatively contained parts of the world - like Ethiopia in the mid-80s - because famine will be a widespread, routine part of living on this planet.
So, before my mind gets too much more disjointed than it already is, that's where I stand. GMOs SO FAR have been proven in an overwhelming number of studies to be safe and effective at increasing crop yields while reducing the amount of pesticide and herbicide that has to be sprayed into the environment (or allowing gentler types of chemicals to be used instead). Every study suggesting harmful effects should absolutely be followed up - as long as the materials and methods are available to investigators to do so. However, to take a global look at the situation in the world today and the situation that the future will present (if things remain unchanged from the current trends), GMOs will be absolutely essential to feed a population that is growing. As much as organic farming is appealing and available to a wealthy nation like the USA, it's neither practical financially for the third world nor does it present the ability to sustain the population as it grows into the future.
