3 ms·

No. I expect people to do their own research into the matter. The data contained within can be verified/corroborated by other sources. Sorry I didn't do your

No. I expect people to do their own research into the matter. The data contained within can be verified/corroborated by other sources. Sorry I didn't do your homework for you. It won't happen again.

penny500 14y ago
Actually, the first Google result with "National Academy of Sciences and Monsanto" is your link, so I'm not sure if you did your research thoroughly. Point me specifically to the source with the text you're referring to. The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim.
- jayfuerstenberg 14y ago
  Since you're too lazy and/or too biased to find such a peer-reviewed scientific paper I guess I have to... http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/pdf/Volume%2021/BGER21-13.pdf http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/pdf/Volume%2021/BGER21... It's a 2004 report but it puts to rest the myth that GM crops are tested well enough by the FDA. The fact is it's not in Monsanto's best interest to waste money on thorough testing. All publicly held corporations in America (Monsanto is no exception) are legally charged with creating profit for the shareholders, even if it means screwing over consumers and the environment. Monsanto has had this down to an art since the 1950s.
  - Blahah 14y ago
    That's not a peer-reviewed paper, it's a book chapter. I actually agree that the regulatory testing doesn't really operate as openly as it should. But there is a huge amount of independent testing done which is open, and it all (so far) supports the same conclusions as the regulatory testing. See for example the list of independently-funded studies at biofortified: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/ http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/indepe...
  - penny500 14y ago
    You have to be kidding if you think your link passes the "peer reviewed" test. I can't even find the publication of your PDF. Who reviewed it?
  - jayfuerstenberg 14y ago
    HN won't let my reply to you both individually any time soon it seems so I'll do so here. The paper was submitted as part of a book, yes. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/volume-21.html http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/volume-21.html As for the actual individuals who did the peer-review you'll have to ask William Freese and David Schubert. The university only mentions that the papers were reviewed. You could perform this on me if you wish, I don't really care... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy Even if I did call these guys up and inquire about the reviewers you'd no doubt move the goal posts and say "well those reviewers aren't accredited and don't have much experience yada yada..." In any case the past record for Monsanto isn't a glowing one (Agent Orange, DDT) and there is no reason to assume it cares to change its ways any time soon. I feel confident I'm on the right side of history.
  - penny500 14y ago
    jayfuerstenberg, that "book" is not recognized by any serious scientific body. I can't even find the authors' resumes through Google or any of their qualifications or the methodologies they used to prove their case.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

No. I expect people to do their own research into the matter. The data contained within can be verified/corroborated by other sources. Sorry I didn't do your homework for you. It won't happen again.

penny500 14y ago

Actually, the first Google result with "National Academy of Sciences and Monsanto" is your link, so I'm not sure if you did your research thoroughly. Point me specifically to the source with the text you're referring to. The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim.

jayfuerstenberg 14y ago
Since you're too lazy and/or too biased to find such a peer-reviewed scientific paper I guess I have to... http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/pdf/Volume%2021/BGER21-13.pdf http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/pdf/Volume%2021/BGER21... It's a 2004 report but it puts to rest the myth that GM crops are tested well enough by the FDA. The fact is it's not in Monsanto's best interest to waste money on thorough testing. All publicly held corporations in America (Monsanto is no exception) are legally charged with creating profit for the shareholders, even if it means screwing over consumers and the environment. Monsanto has had this down to an art since the 1950s.
- Blahah 14y ago
  That's not a peer-reviewed paper, it's a book chapter. I actually agree that the regulatory testing doesn't really operate as openly as it should. But there is a huge amount of independent testing done which is open, and it all (so far) supports the same conclusions as the regulatory testing. See for example the list of independently-funded studies at biofortified: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/ http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/indepe...
- penny500 14y ago
  You have to be kidding if you think your link passes the "peer reviewed" test. I can't even find the publication of your PDF. Who reviewed it?
- jayfuerstenberg 14y ago
  HN won't let my reply to you both individually any time soon it seems so I'll do so here. The paper was submitted as part of a book, yes. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/volume-21.html http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/volume-21.html As for the actual individuals who did the peer-review you'll have to ask William Freese and David Schubert. The university only mentions that the papers were reviewed. You could perform this on me if you wish, I don't really care... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy Even if I did call these guys up and inquire about the reviewers you'd no doubt move the goal posts and say "well those reviewers aren't accredited and don't have much experience yada yada..." In any case the past record for Monsanto isn't a glowing one (Agent Orange, DDT) and there is no reason to assume it cares to change its ways any time soon. I feel confident I'm on the right side of history.
- penny500 14y ago
  jayfuerstenberg, that "book" is not recognized by any serious scientific body. I can't even find the authors' resumes through Google or any of their qualifications or the methodologies they used to prove their case.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]