[flaviut]

The paper you link isn't a study, it is a "discussion", and the author also states the following:

> The emails further demonstrated that since 2005 Monsanto has attempted to destroy my team’s work and reputation, in particular by recruiting third-party, supposedly independent experts at the highest levels to voice ghost-written and biased arguments (Henry Miller or Wallace Hayes, for instance [10,11,12]), who did not, however, publicly disclose their links with Monsanto

I'm not saying that the author is wrong, or that their criticisms of the other study are meritless (I have 0 experience in this field), especially with the widespread ethics concerns they point out.

But this particular paper doesn't draw any conclusions.

[magillax]

I never said it draws any conclusions - I'm just saying that "GMOs are harmful" has not been conclusively invalidated by data by any means - and there's definitely plenty of data out there to cause concern IMO.

I don't buy organic food because I think it's healthier either btw. I do it because of the environmental impacts - same reason I buy local as much as possible via CSAs for my meat and veggies - whether they are certified organic or not (you can usually find a local farm that has practices just as good or better than certified organic anyways). It's super ironic to me that people think they're being environmentally friendly or saving the earth with GMO non-organic food just because it isn't meat. For all the conspiracies around Bill Gates I think his ideas of using tech to save the environment are scarier because it's actually ignoring science.