General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: You can't criticize one pseudoscience when supporting another. [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)Organic food is grown in soil with a lot of harmful bacteria, and fertilized by dumping even more bacteria-laden material on it. Maybe those bacteria get on the food. (This claim is sarcastic - all soil has lots of harmful bacteria.)
The reason there is a consensus that GMO food is the same risk as non-GMO food is because there is no known mechanism by which it would have different effects within the body than similar non-GMO food with similar nutrients. For example, if we add vitamin A to rice, we have no reason to believe it will be treated differently than eating a meal with rice and a vitamin A supplement.
So why no long-term independent studies? Because money is tight. With no known mechanism by which they could be harmful, those studies don't get grants. And since you're refusing industry studies, grants are the only way you're going to get the study you want.
There are scientists who will "ask questions" about GMO food safety as they seek funding. That doesn't mean they have any evidence of harm or fraud in industry studies. It's a tactic to try and attract grant money. Another tactic is throwing out a poorly-designed, short-term study funded by the leftovers from your last grant. It's cheap, and if you're lucky you can get something you can make sound dangerous in order to get more grant money.
Unfortunately, we've sacrificed spending on science to tax cuts. So you either get money from industry, or you get money from an ever-shrinking pool of grants.