I suppose this could apply to people as some are prone to cancer and other illnesses more than others.
Quote:
If the only independent variable in a controlled study was GMO versus non-GMO (as in, if one group was fed a diet high in GMO soy, the other must be fed an otherwise identical diet high in non-GMO soy), and there were significant cancer rate differences between the two groups, it wouldn't matter if the mice/rats were prone to cancer in the first place. The study would show an increased risk of one over the other, using a more sensitive measure. It's like trying to figure out the wind direction. Our heavy bodies are less affected by the wind, so we choose a more sensitive measure -- pull up some grass or something else that's light in weight, let it fall to the ground from head-height, and watch how it falls.
I've read through lots of published studies (on completely "other" things, for school) and it's hard to really discuss what a study found when learning of it second- or third-hand. I'd prefer to see what was actually done than offer an opinion on a study that was written about by a journalist with little more than a passing interest in the science behind it, which was then read by a member here, and summarized and written about again. No offense to anyone, but it's hard to critique something that's gone through all that "filtering."
But, back to the OP, for me it's about the philosophy of how the food is produced. While someone can be non-organic and still be very conscious of pollution and animal welfare and whatever, there is a less strict set of guidelines saying they HAVE to than with organic farming. When I see a "certified organic" stamp on a food product, a great number of questions (but not all) about how that food was produced are answered immediately. But that's just me.
ETA -- oh, and actually, was the mouse/rat line used particularly prone to cancer? That's another reason I'd have to read the study. Yes, most rodent studies use inbred lines, but not all inbred lines are prone to cancer. I'd have to see what the name of the line was that they used in the study to find out for sure. And, once again, that's a detail that gets left out when a study gets published in the mass media.
