Glyphosate found in almost all beers and wines tested
New meta-study finds 40% increase in cancer risk from Glyphosate
Not the same as selective breeding or they wouldn't do it
By definition they are dangerous if not shown safe and the potential risks are large
They Don't cite Seralini
GMOs are dangerous
GMO crops are safe
FDA has accepted industry assurances that genetic modifications are no different than selective breeding which has been going on for millennia. This is not correct or they wouldn't bother. They are introducing much more widely separated genes from different creatures that wouldn't normally interbreed. The outcomes of this are unpredictable and inherently because genomics is so complicated. N. Taleb argues this point and that a precautionary stance should be adopted.
Dangerous means risky, and with new technology if it's not shown safe it's risky.
In the case of GMO's, with all sorts of potential biological activity, and with vast numbers of people and animals people eat consuming them, if something goes wrong it could have very extensive effects.
in which court documents make clear that Monsanto heavily influenced the research and in particular caused the recall of the paper of Seralini at Al. This paper which on its face seems perfectly reasonable, found that glyphosate caused many tumors in rats exposed to it. After the paper was published, it was subsequently retracted over the complaints of the authors by the editor, without good cause being given In my opinion. It turns out that this decision was pressured by Monsanto. So there is no good reason to believe that there is anything wrong with the Seralini paper. Yet the national academies report https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects?utm_source=NAP_embed_book_widget&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=Widget_v4&utm_content=23395
doesn't discuss Seralini at all. So how can it possibly conclude they are safe?
Consumption of GMO crops poses health risks more so than traditional crops.