So first you try to equate conventional breeding with GMO's (and you fail).

Now, you want to equate random mutation with GMO's. You fail again. When a mutation occurs in nature, it happens in an ecological context. Possible mutations are relatively constrained, being determined by what genes are there to begin with. The genome of the mutating organism must continue to function as a whole after the mutation, or the organism's existence will be short. Human genetic engineering is loosed from these ecological constraints. Instead of the logic of the ecosystem, the logic of industry is in play. All genes from any Kingdom, any ecology, and any location are treated as commodified inputs. No concern is 'wasted' on what other genes might be disrupted as inputs are sliced into random locations along the chromosome.

Again, quit it with the false equivalence, 'Dr.'

It must suck for you if all the 'grown-ups' nearby are this clueless. But I'll reserve my serious compassion for those 'grown-ups' who have to listen to your simplistic drivel and snarky tripe in-person.

-app

The rest of the article goes on to say that a third round of peer review confirmed the Seralini conclusions that RoundUp and GMO corn did contribute to higher rates of tumors, above and beyond genetic predispositions in the rats and other factors.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/25/roundup-ready-gmo-maize-causes-serious-health-damage/#.U6rwMqHgziU.facebook

-app