“Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed. [NOTE: article is behind a paywall until October 1.]”
The article’s author argues that GMOs are perfectly safe for the over 9 billion (it’s 10 billion, not including the 100 billion aquatic lives) animals raised on it each year (he deftly leaves out the un-pretty stuff like their torture, neglect, cruelty, terror, and slaughter) and, we’re to assume, the humans who eat them. His inarguable proof? The above study conducted by, yet again, a UNIVERSITY researcher and her trusty assistant. This is common practice–use data from university studies (wonder who paid the grant for this study? or mailed a big fat check to the dean?) to “prove” their case.
And excuse me, REVIEWING (see Reading; see Skimming) 29 years of livestock productivity, etc., is the “most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted?” Reading data collected by whom, may I ask? Any 29 years in particular? 29 years in a row or a random sampling of “before and after” GMOs? How many “before” versus “after” years? Health data on livestock (see Sentient beings) only? Not on humans? If not, why?
If they’re so fucking safe, why not label your GMO-laden products with pride, knowing you have the irrefutable science of two people reading 29 years of data collected by…hey, you never did tell us who collected it, did you?