Agreed. Close enough for studies.
Yes..it is hard to distinguish the dangers of GMO vs pesticide/herbicide as they tend to go hand in hand. The latter being the most obvious of dangers. Yet, the dangers of passing altered and added genes is persistent inside our bodies..and even into the microbes in water and soil. As it combines with the DNA of the organism that ingests it. It's artificial..under-studied..un-regulated madness that has only served to line the pockets of the "geniuses" that perpetuate it. We were fine 30 years ago without them...and will be fine once they get banned from use involving edibles for humans and animals.
And where are you pulling those conclusions from? Your hat?
Unfortunately no, this is not what happens even slightly.
When a human eats something which contains DNA what happens is that their stomach acid totally rapefucks the DNA and breaks it down into nucleotides almost entirely. That's simple chemistry.
Any DNA which survives the acid conditions of the stomach is thoroughly broken down in the intestine's super basic conditions.
The statistical chances of even one modified gene in a billion staying intact through this process are so astronomically low that it makes no sense to blame any kind of statistically significant result (like inflamed tissue, cancer, or the like) on this phenomenon. Literally this is as far from sense as you can get scientifically speaking.
That is precisely why it doesn't make any damn sense to study things in this way. I think, to be perfectly honest, that THIS is the ultimate weapon these companies have. They've got everyone convinced that they should be chasing a boogeyman on this side--when they know full and well its never going to lead to anything definitive.
Do a study which compares tissue after eating pesticide treated GMOs vs lab grown GMOs and the answers will come rolling in.
If you want some kind of reasoning which underlines that our body breaks down DNA, here goes.
DNA/RNA are broken down into nucleotides, which are in turn broken down into Uric acid.
Uric acid retention is responsible for the condition gout.
Sufferers of gout are not supposed to eat a lot of red meat. Why?
Because red meat consists of muscle tissue which is composed of cells which are multinucleated--which is to say that each cell has more than one nucleus, which means there is a lot more DNA there to be broken down.
More DNA---->More nucleotides--->More uric acid---->Worse gout.
It's not magic, guys. The body thoroughly destroys DNA upon ingestion--and even if some did survive, as I said, the chances of the one gene which was modified being left untouched are so retardedly low that it barely makes sense to even point that out.
We're talking about a genome (for corn as an example) that is 2500Mbp long. Thats 2500x10^6 base pairs 2.5 billion base pairs whereas a modified gene is typically about 5-6Kbp long or 6x10^3. Thats 6000 base pairs.
Crunch some numbers and you end up with
6000/2500000000 = 0.0000024% of the total material ingested.
Now expose all of it to hydrolysis conditions and you're saying that, in the true randomness that is nature, you'll end up with that 0.0000024% of the molecul being the part that lives through--in its entirety--the most damaging conditions possible for that type of molecule (indeed conditions whose sole purpose is to break down such molecules). Meanwhile, even if the stuff DID survive the chances of it being incorporated into a human cell are almost ZERO. This requires a broken membrane which is later repaired (a rare event). DNA is MUCH MUCH too polar to permeate a membrane, and our digestive tract doesnt operate by phagocytosis. Stuff must permeate a membrane to get into the blood stream and to, thus, be distributed into the body.
What you're suggesting is a perfect storm of incredibly small chances of stuff happening. It just doesn't make sense that this would be damaging on a large scale.
DNA is an EXTREMELY unstable molecule. What you're suggesting is voodoo chemistry--it doesn't happen, and if it does it certainly doesn't happen on the scale that can present results such as those which we see in some of these studies (where >75% of animals tested are developing inflammation or tumors).
Those numbers correlate about one kadrillion percent better with what is expected from prolonged pesticide exposure.
The kicker is that we already KNOW this. We KNOW that pesticides do this shit. Meanwhile everyone is looking at the scary DNA because they've watched too much Sci Fi.
Monsanto is all too happy to continue producing pesticides and having farmers spray them all the fuck over the place while we chase the boogeyman.
