You know, books and non-scientific articles are not peer reviewed. This means they are a way to get out minority opinion which can be important because sometimes there's stadium criticism in science. But on the other hand, the work is often less credible because it has not been vetted by experts. For a technical topic like this, I think expert review is important.ThrottleJockey said:DeniseCharleson said:How many scientific studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, have you found that conclude there *are* deleterious effects from GMO feed?k15n1 said:Well, I've waded through some of these abstracts and it seems that you've selected some studies that demonstrate that there's no obvious effects of GMO feed.[1] See http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
[2] See www.biointegrity.org
[3] See Part 2, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007