Originally posted by DeepThought
Typically it's drugs companies who fund the clinical trials of their drugs. It doesn't mean that the drugs you take are ineffective. The studies are probably fine, provided they followed the correct protocols and so forth. In this case it's perfectly natural for Monsanto to fund animal trials on whatever it's products are. The problems with GM are le ...[text shortened]... into a wild population - and it's the latter case where the totally uncontrolled risks are.
I agree with most of what you say before this last point you make here:
...and migration of GM genes into a wild population - and it's the latter case where the totally uncontrolled risks are.
there is virtually no danger whatsoever of significant harm coming from migration of GM genes into a wild population.
For starters, genes from a crop can only migrate to a wild population of plants if the two species of plants are pretty closely related.
For example, a gene in a pea crop may, via cross pollination, migrate to a wild pea population. But, because of various biological barriers, it couldn't migrate to the vast majority of other species such as dandelions or chickweed etc. This massively restricts how often the gene can migrate between species and to which species.
Also, all crops, whether from a so called “GM” crop or not, ARE genetically engineered! If not by selective breading then certainly from evolution! So you could ague that, in that sense, ALL genes are GM genes! And genes often do migrate between a crop and a closely related wild plant and this has been going on for thousands if not millions of years! And yet we still haven't seen any evidence of some terrible disaster happening or some kind of significant harm as a result of this! And a man made GM gene is not necessarily fundamentally different or more 'dangerous' than that of a natural wild gene.
We can make a gene that makes a pea crop resistant to, say, a strain of mildew and then put that gene in a pea crop. That would make that pea crop a “GM” pea crop. That gene would not be fundamentally different from genes for mildew resistance that already exist in wild plants -it would be made of exactly the same natural DNA bases, just sequenced in a different order. It might even be identical or very similar to a gene that already exists in the wild. Now, what is the 'risk' of such a gene being in such a GM crop? It cannot migrate to most other plant species but, lets say it migrates to a wild pea population. So how would that be a “risk”? What harm would such a GM gene do when all it could do is make a wild pea population resistant to a strain of mildew?
Of course, not all man-made GM genes are for mildew resistance, but the point I am making here is that, just because a gene is man-made, it doesn't mean it must be potentially harmful if put into a crop EVEN if it can migrate to a closely related species. And, in most cases, there is no risk of harm if the gene does migrate. And in the few cases were there is a risk of harm, such as when the GM gene is for resistance to a herbicide and there is a weed closely related to the crop which may obtain that gene if it was put in that crop, we can simply decide if that risk is worth taking for the benefits and, if not, simply don't take that particular specific risk with that gene but without banning ALL GM because that would just be stupid, but, if we decide the risk is worth taking, manage that risk. We could take measures to minimize the risk by, for example, keep switching the herbicide by alternating the crops. And, even if the worst happens and the wild weed becomes herbicide resistant (which it may do eventually even without that GM gene), that would simply mean we would have to switch herbicides or resort to more traditional weed control methods such as hoeing -big deal! -it may even create jobs!