Here is one study on repeated exposure to GMO corn in lab rats http://www.scribd.co...undup-Herbicide
And again, I am NOT against the production of GMO crops. But shouldn't consumers be able to know what they are eating?
Well, I'll stop you right here. Rats do not equal humans. I understand why studies like this can not be done on humans--it's completely unethical. I'm a psychology major, and my fairly extensive knowledge of methodology and ethics leads me to come to this conclusion: We can't run this study on the human population because it is unethical. We can run this study on rats because it is ethical. But the sticky point about this comes back to (population) external validity--will the results of this study translate to just about the same results in a different population? It did in rats doesn't mean it will in humans. Unless some biology major (tschu I'm looking at you) can come in here and point me to a study demonstrating the resemblance of rats to humans, this study can't be used as causal proof.
Genetically modified does not mean bad. Yes, food can be genetically modified to be bad, but why on Earth would any legal entity want to do that? As soon as the effects of their GE food come to the forefront, people are going to stop buying their product. I can't think of one company that would go into this with the sole intention of making a little profit, harming people, and then going out of business. More so than not, GE foods are going to result in better, not worse things.
What I don't like in this is (and perhaps I'm misreading the Act), how the GMO organizations are absolved of any liability. It won't facilitate them to being reckless, but if something bad results from their GE products, shouldn't they be held responsible? I mean, that seems like common sense.
We do have a right to know what we're putting into our mouths, however, how many of us read the ingredients label of what we eat and drink everyday? We know the general gist of what is in each product, and more often than not, that is good enough for us to make our decisions. So we'll know that this food is a genetically modified (x) with DNA from (y). If we don't like the sounds of that, we won't eat it and find something else.
Thanks for pointing that out. I am a psych minor also. Love psychology. I meant to put that this study cannot be translated to humans. It can't be completely refuted though, and like you said we can't run tests on humans. And I completely agree about the liability part. You interpreted correctly. Monsanto cannot be sued or be told to stop producing a GMO if it was found to be harmful. Monsanto would never try to abuse this power intentionally. But why does Monsanto get protection and the public none if something did happen?