fool.com/investing/general/2013/11/23/regulatory-similarities-between-gmo-foods-and-phar.aspx
Sharon
???
That is an "ad" by Motley Fool a multimedia financial-services company...books, subscription newsletters, and such.
Guess they decided to not post all the "corrections,recalls, etc" made by the FDA on food products, preservatives, dyes, drugs,...Most recent: " Considering only the effects of trans fat from partially hydrogenated oils on levels of LDL-C, "bad" cholesterol, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that eliminating intake of trans fat from partially hydrogenated oils could prevent up to 20,000 cases of coronary heart disease (CHD) and up to 7,000 deaths annually." <----this does not include trans fats.
http://www.fda.gov/food/populartopics/ucm373922.htm
Real world finance...."by the time something hits the news...it is old news."
Just "lazy" when an article hyperlinks to an abstract in Pubmed.
Scientific research they did not have the professionalism to link to:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf
The study is very informative to read.
As in the last part...
"In the EU, the regulatory burdens for GE crop approval are
extremely heavy (Kalaitzandonakes et al., 2007),
de factoexcluding the public sector and minor crops from the
development of GE technology. As a result, the number of
experimental releases of GE crops is rapidly decreasing
(Lochte, 2012) and even large companies are abandoning GE
(Dixelius et al., 2012; Laursen, 2012). This scenario is the
result of the interaction of complex sociological and psycho-
logical factors, risk/benefit ratios, political aspects and an
unbalanced scientific communication"
...and try as I might, I did not see one mention of the FDA nor the US market mentioned in the entire study. So Motley stroked the praise of the FDA ( who really does do a good job even thought ..."Complicating efforts, the FDA is not alone in policing food safety. Even though the FDA is responsible for 75 percent of the food supply, the USDA actually gets 80 percent of the food safety funding, though its responsibilities are limited to meat and poultry." :(), downplayed concerns against the interests of large corporations and then did not use a USA based study....did that author even read the study? Oh, right it was an "ad".
...not to mention that the Pharmaceutical industry's regulatory history is hardly something to be lauded, in terms of safety and public health coming ahead of profit.
Part of Motley Fool's job is to funnel investors to Big Pharma and Agribusiness.
I also agree with the issues with Pubmed's abstracts...abstracts are speculative by nature - they define issues that somebody wants to study, and do not represent any kind of scientific proof until the studies have been done on a large scale and been peer-reviewed. I support Pubmed because it's great to have transparency in research and allow people to become involved in research that interests them, but it's kind of like crowdsourcing something, self-publishing on vanity presses, or the "eBay of science" - Buyer Beware! Pubmed is NOT peer-reviewed research...much of it is TINY stuff posted by non-scientists seeking funding and/or publication credentials. Not that there's nothing useful there - but the fact that something shows up as an abstract on Pubmed does NOT qualify it as scientific research.