Follow-up on "To GM or not to GM?"
In a previous post , I wrote about the controversy around a toxicity study of Monsanto crops. This post got a very valid comment, which I'd like to respond to here. Paul wrote: "de Vendomois' statistics are poor and not applicable to the Monsanto research data they used. The funding for their research was also funded in its entirity by Greenpeace. You have to ask yourself why Greenpeace/de Vendemois used the statistical approach they did knowing its flaws (as pointed out to them by the European Food Safety Authority in 2007). A cynic would suggest they conspired to use whatever method appeared to shed a negative light on GM crops. Would this collaboration have published truly independant research that showed no difference in toxicity between GM and Non-GM plants? I'm no fan of multinational corporations profiting from our basic food needs, but the dodgy, deceitful and blindly prejudiced approaches used by NGOs such as Greenpeace as part of their scaremongering campa