General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sorry, Monsanto: The Science Is on Our Side, Not Yours [View all]FarrenH
(768 posts)than it does about the dishonesty of the people and organizations it is attacking.
(1) Glysophate is not a GMO. It's a synthetic chemical that is used as a herbicide on GMOs and non-GMOs alike.
(2) Roundup is not a GMO. It's a herbicide that is used on GMOs and non-GMOs alike.
(3) The mechanism that causes antibiotic resistance described by the study applies to any and all herbicides that are mildly toxic to bacteria. IOW, it has nothing at all to do with the fact that plants may have been engineered for resistance to a particular herbicide.
(4) The evolution of "superweeds" is a predicted effect of *any* herbicide being overused, regardless of whether that herbicide is one used on GMOs or not. This is basic application of evolutionary theory. Demonstrating this effect for a wildly popular herbicide that is used on GMOs and non-GMOs alike says exactly nothing about GMOs qua GMOs, only about responsible agricultural management. Farmers should vary their herbicide applications to prevent this from happening.
(5) There are, in fact, serious problems with FDA approval processes being corrupted by corporate interests. However, since there is massive scientific consensus outside of the narrow community of researchers involved in those processes, inside and outside of the USA, that existing, widely used GMOs are safe, this doesn't demonstrate anything about the safety of GMOs at all.
In short, this article provides no evidence whatsoever about the lack of safety of existing GMOs.
Sorry, truth-out, you're scientifically illiterate.