Isn't simply living longer a cause too?
Natural selection can't wipe out aging diseases, unfortunately.

Now, what about kids that get cancer? I doubt their short life exposure to environmental factors would've resulted in cancer that fast.

Everything causes cancer, we know, but so does our relatively awful mechanism of copying DNA. We make a TON of mistakes when copying our own DNA during cell division.

BTW, GMO doesn't necessarily mean "harmful". Let alone cancerogenous just because.
One should be careful when labeling things.

There are nothing wrong with GMOs.

Living longer doesn't mean cancer though. The body does have a expiration date and the more and more meds people are put on to extend their lives just means something else will popup. One of the many reasons why more and more people are now suffering from dementia in the elder years. The meds kept them alive past what their brain was going to be good for.

Define short exposure? Also define environmental factors. If the mother has been eating food that can cause cancer long before conception, then from the start of conception a fetus has been exposed to those factors. So short life exposure could also mean their entire life.

Sure some GMO may not be harmful, but you also cannot say that all GMO is safe as well. I find one case that shows GMO as harmful and one can say that GMO can cause cancer. To expand a little further, (depending on where you live) GMO products don't have to be labeled as GMO products. How about this?



So that was in tens days. You mentioned short life exposure. 10-days is not very long at all. I'm sure these rats were fed large volumes of food and this is an absolute worst case, but you are also only talking about 10-days before issues starts to be seen.

How about this study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150305152111.htm

So GM soybean oil was created to "solve" a problem and actually didn't solve it. So while the GM soybean oil is a little healthier than the non-GMO, if the average person used more of the GM soybean oil now and faced the same ill effects, they are actually in worse shape. No longterm studies have been performed.

Conagra is a big proponent of GMO's. Can you trust when a company says something is safe? Take Conagra and their GMO popcorn. They say it (GMO) is safe but yet they were adding a chemical to it for the butter flavor called diacetyl. Conagra decided to remove it from their products amid health concerns of it causing lung cancer. Now, you are thinking what does diacetyl have to do GMO and possible cancer. Well, Conagra says GMO's are safe and they also stated that in 2007 they would not add it to their popcorn. They even put on the box that no diacetyl was added. A lawsuit was filed because Conagra was still alleging putting it in their popcorn.

How about this?
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g...b8-4b8d-a615-e995b68bf626



Since GMO's were released on the market not even 20 years ago, no one knows what health risks they pose (if any.) So why should one be careful labeling them when no true longterm study has actually been performed? Why have various countries banned GMO's if they are so safe?

Self governance has never worked and never will. In many cases the regulating authority doesn't even check.

How do you check that the food is as safe as the non-GMO? Feed both to rats and see what happens? Not exactly a real study that shows how it is metabolized by the human body.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sugar-high-fructo...up-worse-for-your-health/



When a study is paid for by a proponent of something, it is very hard to trust the findings. If the findings were not in favor of their view, would they have released the findings? Was the study done in such a way so that it was guaranteed to be positive?

When scientists cannot even agree but yet no true study has been performed, then how can the lobbyist group or manufacturer be trusted? How come all that has been done and paid for by the the corn growers are short-term studies? Are they afraid of what they will find or of the unknown? High fructose corn syrup has been around for 40 years and no longterm study has even been done. GMO's are 20 years old. So if the FDA, USDA, etc. are not willing to fund the studies, what do they actually do to verify if something is safe?