Quote:

Abstract

Globally, food-producing animals consume 70 to 90% of genetically engineered (GE) crop biomass. This review briefly summarizes the scientific literature on performance and health of animals consuming feed containing GE ingredients and composition of products derived from them. It also discusses the field experience of feeding GE feed sources to commercial livestock populations and summarizes the suppliers of GE and non-GE animal feed in global trade. Numerous experimental studies have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals are comparable with those fed isogenic non-GE crop lines. United States animal agriculture produces over 9 billion food-producing animals annually, and more than 95% of these animals consume feed containing GE ingredients. Data on livestock productivity and health were collated from publicly available sources from 1983, before the introduction of GE crops in 1996, and subsequently through 2011, a period with high levels of predominately GE animal feed. These field data sets, representing over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops, did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of the diet that are digested, there are no detectable or reliably quantifiable traces of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE feed. Globally, countries that are cultivating GE corn and soy are the major livestock feed exporters. Asynchronous regulatory approvals (i.e., cultivation approvals of GE varieties in exporting countries occurring before food and feed approvals in importing countries) have resulted in trade disruptions. This is likely to be increasingly problematic in the future as there are a large number of “second generation” GE crops with altered output traits for improved livestock feed in the developmental and regulatory pipelines. Additionally, advanced techniques to affect targeted genome modifications are emerging, and it is not clear whether these will be encompassed by the current GE process-based trigger for regulatory oversight. There is a pressing need for international harmonization of both regulatory frameworks for GE crops and governance of advanced breeding techniques to prevent widespread disruptions in international trade of livestock feedstuffs in the future.

---

plambe said:

So basically its a crock of shit

---

Stonehenge said:

So the cows look ok which means they are fine? This only has relevance for the feed given to the animals which is not what people eat. OK, maybe, just maybe gmo cattle food is ok. No one said each and every gmo product was equally bad. A large part of the problem is things like roundup in food as well as bt toxins. This study has nothing to do with that and is another red herring.

I don't care if you deniers eat gmo, eat it all you want. I object to your sneaky tricks making other people eat it unawares. Labeling is what we need. The other problem is genetic pollution in which modified genes go everywhere in the environment.

---

Quote:

Because DNA and protein are normal components of the diet that are digested, there are no detectable or reliably quantifiable traces of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE feed.

---

badchad said:

plambe said:

So basically its a crock of shit

---

On what basis do you make this assertion?

---

On the basis of its sponsors. In the same way Monsanto is infuriated with the IARC for their classification of glyphosate as a class 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic to humans). Monsanto criticized the IARC for cherry picking reports on the carcinogenic profile of glyphosate. The studies they omitted were not peer reviewed and were industry-sponsored

So yeah taking into account the nature of the sponsors of this study its highly likely that its flawed.

plambe said:

badchad said:

plambe said:

So basically its a crock of shit

---

On what basis do you make this assertion?

---

On the basis of its sponsors. In the same way Monsanto is infuriated with the IARC for their classification of glyphosate as a class 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic to humans). Monsanto criticized the IARC for cherry picking reports on the carcinogenic profile of glyphosate. The studies they omitted were not peer reviewed and were industry-sponsored

So yeah taking into account the nature of the sponsors of this study its highly likely that its flawed.

---

plambe said:

So yeah taking into account the nature of the sponsors of this study its highly likely that its flawed.

---

Stonehenge said:

> without gmos millions would die of starvation.

Good, let them die. Do you think we are able to feed the constantly growing population no matter how large it gets? In the real world its survival of the fittest. I don't mind people eating crap, just label it so the rest of us can avoid it.

---

If technology can keep people from dying, use it. The planet can sustain the population.

Stonehenge said:

> without gmos millions would die of starvation.

Good, let them die. Do you think we are able to feed the constantly growing population no matter how large it gets? In the real world its survival of the fittest. I don't mind people eating crap, just label it so the rest of us can avoid it.

---

MichAnon.ael said:

Millions do die of starvation.
Cows arent natural eaters of corn, like chickens and grain. They also have 4 stomachs.

So it's cheeper to have all these animals sholder to sholder in one barn, but you have to buy antibiotics so your animals don't get sick while your feeding them corn that was shipped from iowa where the farmer uses gmo seed and pesticides?

---

Stonehenge said:

>Eh there are better and more humane ways to reduce population. Increase in educational levels has lowered birthrates for one. The richest countries all have low birth rates so as prosperity and education spread around the globe birth rates will drop.

Lol, I expect to hear that from the left wingnuts. We will just make everyone rich and give them a free education, problem solved. Got a few hundred extra trillion to make it work?

>And yet the population continues to grow in large part thanks to gmos.

Disaster is looming.

---