Livestock study uncovers exactly zero evidence of GMO harm

By Gene Hall

The head of the Genetic Literacy Project, John Entine, writes recently in Forbes magazine that a pair of animal science researchers studied evidence of livestock feeding before and after the introduction of genetically modified grain. What did they find? Nothing—no evidence of any difference in feeding GMO grain to livestock.

Science has, of course, concluded the same long ago, but we have to keep explaining, I guess. I’ll take a turn. 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.

You can’t read the actual article yet unless you are willing to pay for it, but it joins the current crushing weight of evidence you can read about here. Of course, this study and others amount to a look at well over a trillion “livestock meals,” as Entine points out.

That begs the point, “How much is a trillion?” Glad you asked. In square miles, it’s about 3.7 million states the size of Texas. Travel around the equator of the earth 40 million times and you’ll log a trillion miles.

It’s estimated that trillions of human meals have been served since the advent of biotech in North America alone without so much as a runny nose. Not one ecosystem has been disrupted.

Just how much evidence do you need?

Gene Hall

Public Relations Director
Texas Farm Bureau
I believe that the only hope for a food secure world is capitalism and reasonable profits for America’s farm and ranch families–that the first element of sustainability is economic survival.
Follow Gene on Twitter and Facebook.

4 Responses to “Livestock study uncovers exactly zero evidence of GMO harm”

  1. How much evidence do you need?

    We’ll never have enough evidence to prove GMOs are safe as long as we keep subsidizing the anti-GMO organic movement at the same time as we negotiate with its representatives.

    The sooner we stop trying to have it both ways the sooner the phony debate between organic and GMO farming will end, and the sooner we’ll finally see true progress in GMO farming.

  2. I square off against the anti-GMO crowd where ever I find them. CNS News had a recent article about the growing number of rural folks who are using draft animals for farming chores – however if you read carefully it is little more than another avenue from which to bash modern farming methods.

    Naive soccer moms and cubicle dwellers don’t quite grasp the distinction between a guy who has a job to support his hobby farming methods using draft animals. They easily fall victim to the globalist deindustrialization narrative of Utopian Agrarianism. Pointing out that 315 million U.S. citizens can’t be provided the current healthy choices or quantity available with former third-world methods seems to put those little cogs in their cranium to turning.

    Occasionally I strafe the Alex Jones Anti-GMO bunch with a burst of verbal artillery. AJ is fond of repeating, almost daily that “mice and rats fed a continuous diet of GMO will come up unable to reproduce (sterile) within three generations”. Recently I mused that those of us rubes out in the hinterlands should very soon be enjoying the total disappearance of those pests, since in some heavily agricultural counties of Texas, EVERYTHING being produced is GMO.

    Thanks Mr Hall, for offering more links for my arsenal, though what we really need right now is a counter argument to the claim that glyphosate traces are being detected in newborn umbilical cord tissue.

    As an expert spin-doctor for TFB policies, I’m sure you fully grasp the value of scare-mongering as a marketing tool… The anti-Monsanto jihad drums beat on… and on…

  3. Robert Domitz says:

    The current GMOs are not a panacea. The resistance to herbicides tends to migrate into the weeds after a few generations, requiring the seed firms to create better GMOs, in and endless cycle. Although effective for now and profitable for the seed companies, we need better solutions.

    When will the anti-GMO people realize that farmers have been genetically modifying crops since the dawn of agriculture. All that has changed is the tools we use and the science behind them. Gregor Mendel formalized the science of genetics in the 1800s. The modifications, such as larger fruits, better taste, drought resistance, pest resistance, et.al., added by the early pioneers took many growing cycles to produce. These can now be produced in the laboratory in a few months.

    Nature has thrown many curves at farmers, often leading to bad seasons, and occasionally famine. With the Earth’s growing population, a bad season or two for a key crop can become a disaster. There is less and less room for error. Laboratory-based genetic modification can allow farmers to adjust to nature’s curve balls much more quickly.

    • I agree Robert that the current line up of GMO crops leaves a lot to be desired.

      But the only reason we haven’t moved to the next generation of GMO crops is because of all the resistance from organic activists. This is why we still don’t have GMO wheat or flax, and why nitrogen-fixing cereal and oilseed crops remain the stuff of science fiction that our grandchildren might not even see.

      We need to stand up to organic activists, and quit negotiating with them for the right to be right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>