[MP-Ryan]

http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/food_and_chemical_toxicology_homepage_statement.pdf

A study that concluded GMO corn increased the prevalence of tumours in rats has been retracted - because the methodology was flawed.  Naturally, we should all immediately expect the calls of 'conspiracy!' to begin shortly...

Seralini and his team remain unrepentant, and allege that the retraction derives from the journal’s editorial appointment of biologist Richard Goodman, who previously worked for biotechnology giant Monsanto for seven years.

...nevermind, they already have.

[Luis Dias]

I think it is an healthy reaction. I would be less trustful if there wasn't someone making that argument. It might be unfair, it might not. I think it's really important to be really demanding when it comes to important things like this.

[Nuke]

im all for gmo, it makes booze cheaper.

[Grizzly]

I am all in for seemingly haphazard technological advancements, especially as they are a possible method to fix the problems caused by other technological advancements.

[karajorma]

I've always been of the opinion that peer review should include the option to take the authors out and give them a damn good kicking.

It would do wonders for the quality of science.

[Phantom Hoover]

I have to wonder how often studies supporting GMO are scrutinised for their reliability, really.

[karajorma]

I have to wonder how often studies supporting GMO are scrutinised for their reliability, really.

You honestly think that a flawed study on GMO would get past the anti-GMO nutcases without comment?

[MP-Ryan]

I have to wonder how often studies supporting GMO are scrutinised for their reliability, really.

You honestly think that a flawed study on GMO would get past the anti-GMO nutcases without comment?

Or, to answer him more directly - constantly.

Nevermind the regulatory hurdles that GMO products must pass for any kind of production beyond pure research.

[karajorma]

Nevermind that GMO is actually tested where as cross-pollination or cross-breeding is complete untested. c.f Africanised bees.

[Luis Dias]

So you do realise the nuts are actually useful.

[MP-Ryan]

So you do realise the nuts are actually useful.

You do realize that the nuts, by focusing exclusively on GMOs, are ignoring the much bigger picture that biotechnology in general is not evil but requires careful regulation?

Anyone who claims they don't eat GMO products amuses me.  Humans have been genetically modifying their food for over 10,000 years.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah well we gotta raise more nuts in all different directions then!

[karajorma]

No, we have to get rid of the nuts so that the sensible people can argue for regulation without having their arguments subverted by idiots. Whatever side of the argument they are on, they'll still stifle out any kind of sensible discussion.

It's like arguing whether you'd rather have a crazy defence lawyer representing you or working for the prosecution. Either way you're not going to have a sensible trial but you'd probably get more achieved if they were on the other side.