The Future of GM Technology...

[iceaura]

What I claim means that no human has suffered any harm because the food he/she ate was GM . That is correct.

That is completely unknown. See the trans fat debacle for a reminder of the vast realm of ignorance and void of information in that respect.

It is also flagrantly premature - even if it were known, no assurance of safety could be derived from the fact.

And it deals with only a small aspect of the dangers of GM deployment as currently accomplished and further proposed.

Not one shred of evidence to support ANY of those assertions has been presented.

Your links will do. Just look at the time line: Pioneer had the stuff in production - ready to market, fully developed after years of effort and large expenditure - before they contracted that basic, introductory, preliminary safety check. They had to recall and destroy quite a bit of product (and lost some of it to various markets, IIRC).

We know the FDA didn't require it, because the product was not human food. We know Pioneer did not think it up themselves, because they would have done so prior to making such a large investment.

If I can find the account from the guy who did notice the danger, which I read years ago ( I can't remember his name - IIRC he was on vacation in Brazil at the time), I will link it, but meanwhile the physical situation is pretty clear.

The thing that you anti-GM boosters fail to appreciate is that every GM crop or food has to satisfy regulatory authorities in roughly 80 different countries. Not an easy ask.

On the contrary, a very easy task. Even the US authorities have been very lax and easily co-opted, and in many countries (such as the African ones Monsanto is pressuring) simple bribery will do.

 

[adoucette]

Your links will do. Just look at the time line: Pioneer had the stuff in production - ready to market, fully developed after years of effort and large expenditure - before they contracted that basic, introductory, preliminary safety check. They had to recall and destroy quite a bit of product (and lost some of it to various markets, IIRC).

We know the FDA didn't require it, because the product was not human food. We know Pioneer did not think it up themselves, because they would have done so prior to making such a large investment.

If I can find the account from the guy who did notice the danger, which I read years ago ( I can't remember his name - IIRC he was on vacation in Brazil at the time), I will link it, but meanwhile the physical situation is pretty clear.

Again, just more assertions with NOTHING to back it up.

Your claim of "IIRC" does NOT constitute proof.

So, where we are:

You have provided no Proof that the FDA didn't require testing on SoyBeans for allergens just because of the marketing plans of the company. You need to show the FDA regulations where Transgenic SoyBeans are excluded from testing if marketed as a feed crop.

You have provided no Proof that the crop was IN LARGE SCALE PRODUCTION, of course it has to be in limited production for Pioneer to do the testing.

You have provided no Proof that an outside whistle-blower was responsible for Pioneer performing these allergy tests.

You have provided no Proof that the SoyBeans had been released to the market and thus had to be recalled and that some of the SoyBeans were lost in the process.

No Proof at all.

Arthur