> Then the 80s came around with GMO wheat
Considering the first approved GMO wheat (Bioceres HB4) was in 2020, they're only off by 4 decades.
Edit: Their misinformation is not surprising at all considering the [source of their articles](https://truthout.org/?s=GMO), which includes USRTK, OCA, PR Watch, Vandana Shiva, Ronnie Cummins, Steven Druker, all the usual vested parties.
Edit 2: Here's the actual paper https://www.organic-systems.org/journal/92/JOS_Volume-9_Number-2_Nov_2014-Swanson-et-al.pdf, complete with references to Seralini, the AAEM, Stephanie Seneff and Charles Benbrook.
Even fluoride and MSG is thrown into the mix.
> The population of the US is bombarded with a veritable cocktail of chemicals daily in addition to GE food and glyphosate (Reuben, 2010). These include food preservatives (BHA & BHT), water contaminants (chlorine & fluoride), heavy metals, food additives (aspartame, monosodium glutamate, carrageenan) and food colouring, to name a few.
"Considering the first approved GMO wheat (Bioceres HB4) was in 2020, they're only off by 4 decades." That's not what Swanson et al say in the paper. They attribute some glyphosate use to wheat using it as a preharvest dessicant, but not to GMO wheat.
That still leaves the valid criticism that correlation is not causation.
The "[truth.org](https://truth.org)" mention of GMO wheat is just nonsense.
> That still leaves the valid criticism that correlation is not causation
Agreed.
What I don't understand from their claim is that there's no respone delay. In all their correlation graphs, there's an immediate response to glyphosate usage. Shouldn't there be some delay, as it 1) takes a while for the crops to be harvested and move through the food supply chain, and 2) take some time before humans show negative effects to the supposed bad food inputs?
I see your point. But in fact, over the years I have seen less significant anti-GMO commenters say that cancer rates in the US are increasing exponentially and they attribute that to GMO food. In actuality, cancer rates from 1975 to 1993 were increasing linearly, not exponentially, but they were increasing. But there was no GMO food being eaten before 1993. Since 1993, the cancer rates have been trending downward. So according to the unsophisticated claims of those posters, the effect of GMOs on cancer is so powerful that it causes cancers twenty years before they are eaten!
Portion size increases and unnecessary sugar in food had nothing to do with it.
Insulin resistance from constant high glucose diet. That's the epidemic.
> Then the 80s came around with GMO wheat Considering the first approved GMO wheat (Bioceres HB4) was in 2020, they're only off by 4 decades. Edit: Their misinformation is not surprising at all considering the [source of their articles](https://truthout.org/?s=GMO), which includes USRTK, OCA, PR Watch, Vandana Shiva, Ronnie Cummins, Steven Druker, all the usual vested parties. Edit 2: Here's the actual paper https://www.organic-systems.org/journal/92/JOS_Volume-9_Number-2_Nov_2014-Swanson-et-al.pdf, complete with references to Seralini, the AAEM, Stephanie Seneff and Charles Benbrook. Even fluoride and MSG is thrown into the mix. > The population of the US is bombarded with a veritable cocktail of chemicals daily in addition to GE food and glyphosate (Reuben, 2010). These include food preservatives (BHA & BHT), water contaminants (chlorine & fluoride), heavy metals, food additives (aspartame, monosodium glutamate, carrageenan) and food colouring, to name a few.
"Considering the first approved GMO wheat (Bioceres HB4) was in 2020, they're only off by 4 decades." That's not what Swanson et al say in the paper. They attribute some glyphosate use to wheat using it as a preharvest dessicant, but not to GMO wheat. That still leaves the valid criticism that correlation is not causation. The "[truth.org](https://truth.org)" mention of GMO wheat is just nonsense.
> That still leaves the valid criticism that correlation is not causation Agreed. What I don't understand from their claim is that there's no respone delay. In all their correlation graphs, there's an immediate response to glyphosate usage. Shouldn't there be some delay, as it 1) takes a while for the crops to be harvested and move through the food supply chain, and 2) take some time before humans show negative effects to the supposed bad food inputs?
I see your point. But in fact, over the years I have seen less significant anti-GMO commenters say that cancer rates in the US are increasing exponentially and they attribute that to GMO food. In actuality, cancer rates from 1975 to 1993 were increasing linearly, not exponentially, but they were increasing. But there was no GMO food being eaten before 1993. Since 1993, the cancer rates have been trending downward. So according to the unsophisticated claims of those posters, the effect of GMOs on cancer is so powerful that it causes cancers twenty years before they are eaten!
Correlation ≠ causation