I do not question anyone's integrity.
Except that you did; your own words:
There are no independent researchers in my eyes.
25-30 years of genetic engineering research are much too short to judge the long-term consequences. That's a fact too.
No, it is not a fact. There are very well developed toxological, etc, frameworks which can accurately determine long-term health risks (similar for environmental) over periods of one-to-two decades. I *literally* teach this stuff for a living. You're repeating propaganda from anti-science groups; there is no basis in reality for your claim.
If you actually care about the reality of how we quantify long-terms risks I'd suggest the following books:
Toxicological Risk Assessment of Chemicals: A Practical Guide
Fundamentals of Toxicology: Essential Concepts and Applications
Probabilistic Approach for Deriving Acceptable Human Intake Limits and Human Health Risks from Toxicological Studies: General Framework.
It has not been proven that there are no sequelae, e.g. in the human genome, if you take the modified food for many years.
Actually, it has, at multiple levels.
Firstly, there is no known physical, chemical or biological process by which genomic changes can be induced by GMOd foods. In fact, for that to occur a lot of established biology (e.g. how digestion & nutrient absorption works) would have to be completely wrong.
Secondly, it is physically impossible for GMO'd genes/proteins to have a different biological effect when consumed that a non-GMO'd variant; the GMOd portions of an organisms are still DNAs and the encoded protein (not counting knockout GMOs, which lack genes rather than having new ones), and our bodies process them the same as any other consumed DNA or protein. The average food item you eat has between 20,000 and 60,000 genes/proteins. GMOs have - at most - and extra 10 (most have 1). Unless you think GMO DNA is magical, it cannot have any effect different from that of the already foreign (to you) DNA and genes in your food.
Lots of info here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects
Again, you are merely parroting propaganda from anti-GMO groups that has no basis in reality.
Only when this technique is used for many years on all foods (there are still only certain plants, if you observe the cultivation in the whole world) will you see what happens, to what extent dependencies arise (income dependencies, chemistry dependencies) and to what extent humans are used.
Again, no. The entire fundamental underlying principal of science (and the statistics we rely on) is to make accurate inferences about what occurs in the large scale through observations/experiments on samples/subgroups.
Laboratory tests results are not what happens on the fields and the field research is not what will happen in different locations.
Good thing that GMO's go through multi-site field trial before approval, then! Glad you agree (even if you don't realise it)
that the framework used to approve GMOs and assess their safety is robust, and takes into account environment-specific events.
But I think all people should be allowed to determine these changes, the farmers and scientists and the consumers.
You do understand that farmers around the world are clamouring for GMO's - right? Its why they've been so successful. No one forces farmers to buy them; farmers buy them because they provide value to the farmer. And by-and-large, consumers don't seem to care.
If we're going to label foods for reasons of risk, it makes far more sense to label foods grown using compost or manure as fertiliser; unlike GMO's,
there is an actual, proven risk. Organic produce (and conventional produce fertilised with manure or compost) is about 20x more likely to carry pathogenic bacteria than crops grown conventionally. In contrast,
analysis of over a trillion (yes, trillion, with a 't') consumed GMO meals finds no measurable risk.
But yeah, lets label the GMOs :scratch: