"There Are, In Fact, No Data Comparing The Food Safety Profiles Of GM Versus Conventional Breeding"

In reply to the anonymous commenter in this post: Why We Should Be Testing Genetically Engineered Foods On Humans who presumed GMOs had undergone safety testing:

"There are, in fact, no data comparing the food safety profiles of GM versus conventional breeding, and the ubiquitous argument that since there is no evidence that GM products make people sick, they are safe is both illogical and false. There are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support this contention.

Without proper epidemiological studies, most types of harm will not be detected, and no such studies have been conducted.

The necessity of labeling all GM products and particularly NEPs is therefore critical if there is any hope of monitoring adverse health consequences due to their consumption. For example, it would have been impossible to identify the source of the toxic tryptophan supplement if the product were not traceable through labeling."
- David Schubert, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, in "The Problem with Nutritionally Enhanced Plants", Journal of Medicinal Food, 2008

Whose job is it to safety test GMOs?

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
- Quote by Phil Angell, Monsanto's Director of Corporate Communications, in "Playing God In The Garden," by Michael Pollan, New York Times Magazine, 25 October 1998.

But...

"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety."
- FDA Federal Register, "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties," 1992, a document, signed by David Kessler, which the FDA continued to reference, as recently as October 2008.

________