>Responsible Technology," but there are also some utterly absurd statements.
>They claim that "GMOs are inherently unsafe." This is simply false.

That's a strong conviction, Peter.  Can you point to [at least somewhat]
extensive safety studies on GMOs?  To my knowledge, FDA declared GMOs as
GRAS (generally recognized as safe) without extensive safety studies and
despite caution/ warnings from its own agency scientists.  But this is no
surprise given Monsanto's notorious influence over US government agencies.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/21/former-monsanto-exec-appointed-to-the-head-of-the-f-d-a/

>A statement like this grossly oversimplifies reality into a neat package
that people can memorize and spread, like a foolish rumor. It discourages
inquiry and proves that some people would rather have easy answers than dig
in and get the hard facts.

I think you may be talking here more 'hard opinions" than ''hard facts.''
You can't say it's a fact GM food is safe or
even neutral.  Consider this just one of many studies to the contrary:

de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the
Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009;
5:706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

A few excerpts from the above:

 ''Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with
GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were
mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary
detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects
were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic
system."

"Triglyceride levels increase over time within the GM maize feeding group
and whilst decreasing in the case of controls."

"...we consider that based on the analysis as presented by Monsanto that it
fails to demonstrate that the consumption of these GM maize feeds was indeed
safe as claimed. Any sign of toxicity should be taken into consideration to
justify the prolongation of the experiment, or, if this is not possible, to
reassess the statistical analysis, and to propose a scientifically valid
physiological interpretation of any findings relating to disturbed
functional parameters on a per organ basis. This was the ultimate objective
of this investigation."

"In summary, the tendency for physiological disturbance is characteristic of
almost all rats of all GM-fed treatment groups, and physio-pathological
profiles differ according to dose or sex."

...have me very concerned.

These rats were fed just GM corn and only at 11% & 33% content of overall
feed with measurements taken at 5 and 14 weeks. Humans consume a bunch of
crops that are GM now and not just for a mere 14
weeks!

If rats show multiple negative effects, so can humans and honey bees. Rats
are easy to study.  Honey bees' organs are much more difficult to analyze.
And honey bees are short-lived to begin with.  I am not aware of any
in-depth studies on GMOs and honey bees. (That doesn't mean, of course, that
they have not been performed.)

Waldemar

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm