Dear Lenh Sirandidou, Plant breeders who are employed by gmo based corporations cannot be considered nonbiased observers in the evaluation of ecological and health interference that gmo can have on the plant, animal and human health. This inability to judge without bias is because of a baltant self vested interest. of their employment and interest This could be called a case of the foxes tending the chickens. 

A number of health issues has expanded along with the gmo expansion in our cropping systems. The enzyme in plants with roundup disrupts is not found in animals. But this same chemical interfere with more normal ecology as the the diversity of weeds which are important as food sources of normal pollinators and biocontrol insects for instance are largely eliminated. These weeds can play long term roles in nutrient recycling and organic matter accumulation. Diversity provides for stability and avoids all sorts of epidemics and pest outbreaks. Since th 1990 introduction of Round up ready soybeans minor diseases such as soybean sudden death syndrome and white mold have grown greatly in their importance. 

When you look at the arguments always remember to follow the money of those arguing. Vested interest does not make for good science. 

Recently the European Union scientists have suggested the 'safety" of roundup is greatly exaggerated and the compound should be considered a suspected carcinogen, 

While the plant enzyme inhibited is not found in humans it is common in many microbes. The disruption of roundup to gut bacteria may be related to all sorts of negative digestive interactions and dissected animals even is short term protocols have evidence of irritated gut linings. 

A lady medical doctor at MIT has been putting together a case for large negative effects on human health for longitudinal data in many different rare disease which have become epidemic along with the gmo epidemic. 

Dear Paul, roundup is not a gmo plant, is an herbicide, and if carcinogenic hopefully it will be banned. Roundup is also used in non-GMO fields, therefore your reasoning is not correct.

About epidemics. It might be true what you say, but often it is the fault of the growers not the crops. For GMO crops it is asked to leave patches of non GMO crop, to counteract the emergence of resistant pests, but since the GMO crop has higher yields, it is something that growers avoid to do.

GMOs are not all the same, therefore one cannot say if they are healthy or not; it depends on the specific case. One can agree with it or not but this is the point. A drug can be developed being dangerous for health; it will be abandoned, why attacking all GMO crops even if one of them would be proven to be dangerous? The fact is that it is several years that we commonly eat GMOs (all of us). Maybe not directly, but imagine that for instance in the US, people eat cows that are grown mainly on GM corn, therefore they are basically eating transformed GM corn. Percentage of GM crops is raising fast in the US and other countries. And no one will stop this. One could say: unfortunately, and I could agree, but the problem is not GMO or not GMO, but the fact that since we want to find plenty of different things at the supermarket, irrespectively of the season of the year, we sustain the destruction of ecosystems and the increase in intensively cultivated areas (that I call outdoor factories). this is at the basis of epidemics. Organic stuff is equally dangerous when we produce tomatoes in the winter by heating a greenhouse. I am not saying that GMOs are never risky, only that if managed in the right way they can help. The common people opposition to GMOs, in Italy at least, brought them outside universities and in the hand of global companies whose only objective is to make money. They don't really care about people but about money. This is the error. Keeping research activities in the universities would have been much more transparent. Instead, we banned the use of these crops (often even for research purposes) leaving large groups such as Novartis and Monsanto to lead the market and the availability fo GMO crops.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx

Dear Matteo

The question asked pertains to if . the information of gmo companies and their employees be considered non bias assessment in relation to risks.

Of the purveyors of the technology have a doctrine of acceptable risk in which the risks are rationalized and the vulnerability is put on the plate of the consumer. This doctrine in the hands of purveyors basically considered new technology as innocent until proven guilty.

Roundup a herbicide kills plants pretty much indiscrminately and this causes sizable ecological disruption compared to other forms of targeted weed management. The vast majority of GMO has centered on genetic alteration of the plants to accept roundup for production systems of field crops grown over extensive areas.

Cutting down a forest can be rationalized especially for the owner who is benefitting from it it does limit the fact that the environmental services of the forest were compromised for the property and for the society around it. You are right in your assertion that the public Universities as well as the monied interests are not transparent in revealing their vested interests. In the United States the extent of the change of the food system is hidden as labelling of the products is not required and the individual choice on the issues is underground.

GMo technology is mostly used for the ability to use the Roundup herbicide and the roundup herbicide is increasingly being linked with compromised plant, animal, and human metablism. Research on GMO is not banned it is however regulated this has not prevented its escape and its changing of the genetics of key natural reserves of crops in wild states such as ancestral maize in Mexico. As someone who worked in International research in this area I will attest that the activities have positive and negative impacts and the purveyors of these put their spin on what really is going on. 

That the way I see it and of course friend we can always agree to disagree. 

"A lady medical doctor at MIT has been putting together a case for large negative effects on human health for longitudinal data in many different rare disease which have become epidemic along with the gmo epidemic. "

what kind of reference is this? how can we find this?

I agree with you, but the question was if there is some research results showing the effects of GMOs on human health. Now one can always think that all published results are biased by the interests of the large and rich companies producing GMOs, but I think it is not the truth. There are many researchers who perform their research without any interference from outside, and these are the majority, in my opinion. Truth is that we confound the enterprise-based food production system and the problems related to GMOs. Until now roundup was considered one of the less harmful herbicides for its fast bio-degradation, this is the reason why most GMO crops are resistant to it. The problem is to consider food a merchandise, but this is a consequence of the economical regimen we have chosen to live in and more importantly it is a consequence of how we interpret this age of prosperity (mainly wasting goods only because we have the money to buy them).

The problem is also the complete deregulation in some countries. As you cite the use of GMO corn in Mexico where there are many natural varieties. But this is an error of the Mexican politicians, not the GMO itself. This is the point, problems from technology does not emerge because of the technology but because of the way we use it.

btw when I told that research on GMO is banned, I meant in Italy (and other countries as well). The truth is that it is not forbidden, but strongly counteracted. And you cannot grow GM crops for commercial purposes. However you can import GMO derivatives! What this means? It means that instead of producing GMO crops, we import them. Now, if you import them it is because you'll use them, therefore italy is considered GMO-free but italians likely consume GMO every day (directly or indirectly). This is really ironic. aint it? I think this is something convenient for GMO enterprises because imported goods are alway more expensive than internally produced ones. 

Coming back to the question, there is full of research papers showing the beneficial effect of specific GMO crops on the environment and the equivalence with non GMO food. All of them are guided by companies?

for instance

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/pdf/nature11153.pdf

Thank you all for your responses.they are really appreciated.Wishing you good health and peace without end.

We know that elements in our every day life are actually harmful, for example, radiation levels are worse close to a coal burning electric power plant than to any nuclear generator, the effects of GMO's RNA and DNA fragments, that sometimes are absorbed from guts to blood, are impossible to assess, as all the events in this are random events, and if a noxious effect ever happens, it can pass unnoticed, no severe effects in the primary host could take place, and effects in offspring are harder to see.

Well you can postulate that from the partly genetically induced changes from food, the Adam's morsel is rarely seen in men of today, or wonder how a slug and a jelly fish acquired chloroplasts. Thru eating algae? Is it good to these animals?

Heavy metal contamination of soils, global warming, poor sanitation, overweight, infectious diseases, are actual risks, much sure than any damage from GMOs.

The conjecture is worth maintaining about GMOs, but just the task of data gathering looks huge. Food from GMO may deserve the presumption of innocence, and this, same as the old 'No Nukes' war, is mostly a marker some use to detect those outside their pyramids of power and rationalization ideas, and point them as targets to be destroyed, that's the sad true. Dádá Siegt!

"Are plant breeders unethically interfering in evolution? "

Through no efforts of their own the field has nowadays been left to the multinational corporations, which only confuses the ethics involved. The question is best confined to pre-Darwin times. as reviewed by him. Human advancement depended on the unnatural genetic modification and hence domestication of wild plants and animals.

Probably, there is no research with valid evidence about any effects on humans of eating GMO, either negative or positive, the number of variables to be assessed is so huge, no computing power nor mathematical approach for it exists, nor any database.

RNA, DNA from food is constantly found in blood of animals after eating, the effects may be unknown; for sure this has been happening since animal life exists, there is a lot of DNA from viruses integrated in our genomes, some of it through Reverse Transcriptase, we just ignore most about it and its effects on our phenotype.

The most peculiar I read about this is that a Slug exists, that as eating herb and algae for many generations, evolved functional chloroplasts in its skin.

There is a Jellyfish, able to thrive in both fresh and salty water, having no CNS, but a network of neurones, and eyes identical to ours, that also incorporated photosynthesis in its body; as it are parthenogenetic, you can guess its invasive potential is terrifying.

'It's a living thing, what a terrible thing too' (Electric Light Orchestra)

With this body and energy arrangement, the possibility even exists these photosynthetic jellyfish could live and thrive in the vacuum of space, provided the case it had a way to fly there.

It's a bit like a silly old question: 'If in Heaven, people lives with their flesh bodies, it must be a place, and the possibility exists of travelling there'

Hurdles to this wish may take two forms: -You can travel to Heaven if you learn where it is, and find the way of going there, or, dangerous talk to those asking: -You could travel to Heaven if you're allowed to do it.

Regards. Salut +

Follow this link

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TONUTRAJ/TONUTRAJ-6-18.pdf

regards

@Joe Graymer

i really love your answers. If i am a mix of genes i must be a lot of things. Sometimes i think about the organisms that live peacefully on and in my body and i talk to them. i love them to. I am like a small universe for them. So, how wrong is the darwinian theory? It is like we are all one, every single cell on this planet has the same ancestor? Or am i just talking nonsense? i thought about the jellyfish and wondered if it could really survive from the Van Allen belt. Are genes affected by our feelings - thoughts? Have we the power to modify our dna ? Crazy for the deafs. They can't hear the music i am dancing to.

@Anthony G Gordon

Human kind was once a wild kind. Like all other mammals. why you separate your self from the other animals? What do you mean by "unnatural" ? Could you please analyze a little more your answer? thank you.

To Lenh Siranidou: thanks for your kind appreciation, if you look at the very early days of aviation, you'll find legends about 'stratospheric jellyfish', reminding the Alien in 'Liquid Sky', that besides the name of a type of Heroin, as 'Brown sugar', is the title of a great movie by Slava Tsukerman and Ann Carlisle. The attached document, from an Spanish UFO specialist, tells about something similar.

Besides the quotation by W Shakespeare, about the many things in this world we ignore, it was that by Paul Eluard, who ended wearing 'les cornes' by Salvador Dalí: 'There are other worlds, but it all are inside this one'

About the 'wild' nature of mankind, some ideas come to my mind: the image of 'universal copulation' in Marat-Sade, and saint Paul's 1Co 15, 39; and 1Co 15, 46

To Lenh Siranidou: yes, our mood has influences, not only in the skin electric conductivity/ resistance, the basis for 'Kirlian photography', but in the immune system, in genes passed to our offspring via Epigenetics, DNA methylation, gene suppression or expression,...

The XIV century Flemish mystic, the blessed Jan van Ruysbroek, his work was summarized into the -Imitation of Christ, by Thomas of Kempis, anticipated in the attached text the devotion of 1790 French mutiny people for the 'Mere reason', they placed also in 'the Sun', as old Greeks: 'Apollyon',='Abaddon the exterminator', 'Alberic', 'Oberon'; Ruysbroek proposed that those showing the stigmata of Jesus' Passion on their palms, feet, head, thorax, have it because the prayer, the meditation, mobilizes inner powers, that effect the wounds.

That this is true may have the evidence that we know nails in crucifixion were put on wrists, not in palms, otherwise the weight would torn hands, and damned will fall from cross, but 'stigmatized' show wounds in 'impossible' places, as palms,..this doesn't equal 'fraud', as it can be seen that if there was a trick there, they tricked also themselves.

Of course, the name: 'Fakir' has a connection to 'Faker', also to the Spanish verb 'hacer', 'make'; 'hechicero', 'wizard'; 'hechos', 'acts'.

For 'dynamic psychology', receiving a prescription, a pill from someone, is a bit same as receiving, internalizing, as a symbol, the Prescriber, something a bit as a lay 'communion'; the Christian Communion is cannibalism, the magic side, acquiring the soul qualities' of eaten person.

Salut +