Going to have to call you on your source AGAIN. I would just paste the link but I have the sneaking suspicion you are not looking t the other material tht has been presented to you. Your link is from a study in 2003. Look at what happened in 2007
In the September 2007 edition the journal published an "experimental feature" which gave Bruce Chassy, Vivian Moses, Val Giddings and Alan McHughen free space to attack the work of Irina Ermakova, whose findings (on the deleterious effects of GM soy on rats involved in feeding experiments) had caused profound concern in the GM industry and across the world (2). In certain quarters the decision was taken to "shoot the messenger." So Ermakova was invited by the Editor, Andrew Marshall, to answer a set of questions about her research methods and her findings, and she willingly agreed to this, assuming that this would be "her" article. She was even sent a dummy proof which had her name on it as author. She was never told the names of the four men who were intent upon attacking her work, and never given sight of their comments. Most of Ermakova's references were removed, and replaced with references chosen by her critics to bolster their case. What is more, when the article appeared in print it had Andrew Marshall's name on it as author. GM Free Cymru has described the full sequence of events very carefully (3), and is in no doubt that this was a deliberate "set-up" by a journal which fell far short of the standards to be expected in mainstream academic publishing (4).
Following the publication of the article there was a storm of protest relating largely to the unethical practices employed by the journal in its treatment of Ermakova, and letters poured in not only to the Editor of "Nature Biotechnology" but also to senior personnel in the Nature / Macmillan publications empire. The editor was forced to accept a detailed defence of her science by Ermakova herself, and a series of complaints relating to the manner in which she had been treated. He also had to agree to publish five out of the twenty or so critical letters which he received from other scientists, and to print a rather feeble and convoluted "justification" concerning his notorious "publication experiment." In a further unprecented move, Marshall placed the full correspondence between himself and Ermakova onto the Nature Biotechnology web site. All of this material went on- line on the Nature Biotechnology web site on 7th December 2007 (5).
In his article (6) Marshall refused to apologize for his actions, and put everything down to mistakes and misunderstandings. But he has at least had the good grace to admit that his removal of Ermakova's references did indeed give the impression to readers that her work was "inferior and unsupported by the literature"; that the dummy proof should never have been sent with her name on it; that she was indeed misled into the belief that the article would be hers; that she was not fully informed as to the publication process or the intention of the feature article; that he, as Editor, should never have accepted comments made jointly by the four critics, and for which no one individual would accept responsibility; that he published criticisms relating to a perceived lack of data in her answers without giving her an opportunity to provide that data; and that he deliberately withheld from Ermakova the names and the comments of the four critics, since he viewed the article as an exercise in journalism rather than an exercise in scientific publishing.
What kind of true "Scientific Journal" employs these types of practices?
BMK.....what exactly is your problem and why do you continue with all of the derogatory comments in many of your posts? Can´t you just present your argument without resorting to name-calling?
I think my position is summed up rather clearly here. With an obvious lack of truly unbiased studies, how are you SO SURE that bt Corn is safe.
Human health and environmental risks
The promise of this technology has been largely overshadowed by concerns about the unintended effects of Bt corn on human health and the environment. Cry protein toxicity, allergenicity, and lateral transfer of antibiotic-resistance marker genes to the microflora of our digestive system threaten to compromise human health. Despite these alarming possibilities, the risks to human health appear small based upon what is known about the bacterial endotoxin, its specificity, and confidence in the processes of plant transformation and screening. The task of determining the levels of such risks, however, are immense. Human diets are complex and variable. How can we trace the acute or chronic effects of eating GM ingredients when they are mixed in with many other foods that may also present their own health hazards? It is even more complicated to determine the indirect risk of eating meat from animals raised on transgenic crops. These tests take time, and the results of clinical trials are not always clear-cut. It will likely take decades before we can know with any certainty if Bt corn is as safe for human consumption as its non-GM alternatives.
We currently know very little about the actual ecological risks posed by Bt corn. Bt corn may be toxic to non-target organisms, transgenic genes may escape to related corn species, and ECB and other pests may become resistant to Cry proteins
With respect to the last sentence this has already proven to be true as I linked in my last post
The culprit? Bt corn—a type of genetically engineered corn with insecticide built into its genes.
Variations of this corn strain—peddled across the world by large multinationals including Monstanto and Syngenta—are giving rise to Bt resistant insects and worms, studies show.
NPR reports that resistant 'pests' are decimating entire cornfields across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska.
Yet, now that the targeted insect killings are not working, big agribusiness is simply throwing pesticides at the problem instead of moving away from GMOs.
This is despite warnings last year from the Environmental Protection Agency that unrestrained use of Bt corn will off-set the balance of the ecosystem.
Nice deal for the companies involved. Sell them the seed that is supposedly resistant to certain insects and when this proves to not be the case, sell them a whole bunch of pesticides.
Edit: add links
Edited by jugoso, 16 July 2013 - 08:56 PM.