So a study finds out that rats exposed to fertilizers suffered tumors, and rats fed exclusively on corn LACED WITH THE SAME fertilizers suffered tumors, but not as much as rats who drank the fertilizer straight? And that rats who drank no fertilizer and ate no GMO corn suffered a premature death rate of around 20-30%?
Am I missing something here? Color me stupid, but I thought that study controls were supposed to isolate all elements being studied thoroughly?
All I see is a study proving that RoundUp fertilizer is carcinogenic. Shocking, yes. But it tells me nothing about GMOs, nothing about what particular genes were modified, what effects the modification had on the modified organisms and what inherent qualities or chemicals the modified organisms possessed that would cause cancer.
Aside from the fertilizer, of course.
That's the problem with reading something with the idea of proving a case, you miss the bigger picture. Thankfully, more sober news agencies are calling it as it is... RoundUp is possibly carcinogenic. Not the plants.
And after all that, we will have to examine what it is in non-GMO corn that causes a 20-30% premature mortality rate in rats.
---
This is not to say that Monsato isn't an abusive, bloodsucking corporate agricultural monopolist with no conscience... But the study strikes me as almost as flawed as a recent one that pointed out diet softdrinks are linked to higher incidences of heart problems versus fruit juice. Only admitting, in the fine print, that most of the fruit juice respondents were vegetarians, while most of the softdrink drinkers ate lots and lots of red meat. Whoops.