The report isn't claiming GMO is carcinogenic, it's claiming glyphosate is, that's a big difference.
If the roundup crops had been created by breeding or grafting, would you say "I can't wait until the pro-grafting crowd comes forward calling all this "anti-science"
GMO is a technique for modifying plant genomes, Roundup Ready is an application of the technique to make crops resistant to an herbicide. It's overuse of the herbicide that's the problem here.
Traditional plant breeding techniques have successfully been used to breed herbicide resistant crops without GMO now, meaning that you could have the same allegedly carcinogenic cocktail of chemicals sprayed on your non-GMO crops.
Does Roundup "cause cancer"? Well, probably. You know what else causes cancer? Water. Oxygen. Sunrays. Coffee (on Monday, Wednesday and Friday; according to the news, it cures cancer on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday). It all depends on exposure.
And yes, I'm willing to bet that all that "organic-certified" nasty crap people dump on their crops is even worse than Roundup.
Study itself may be fine (I haven't read it), but the article is total junk. If you were to believe this kind of reporting, then every goddamn thing around you will give you cancer for sure. And yes, a lot of people believe that, and then they go all kinds of crazy (from unsolicited food advice - "Hey, why would you drink that?! Don't you know it causes cancer?!" to anti-vaccine movements).
Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" crops are not the only place roundup (glyphosate) is used.
If engineering herbicide resistance into plants is such a bad thing, what's your alternative? Do you want to return to the methods we used before we discovered modern genetics?
Monsanto has done some nasty things in the modern era, but their genetics (including their "Roundup Ready" products) are not one of them. If you want to complain about Monsanto, I suggest starting with the changes that Romney (Bain & Company) made to the companies business practices.
Your first comment seems to suggest that people who are pro-GMOs will be going against these findings. GMOs and weed killers are two parts of Monsanto's business model, but as far as the science behind the two goes there is virtually nothing in common.
The entire point of roundup is that you use a GMO that has been modified to make it resistant to the weedkiller. In theory this allows you to use less weedkiller earlier in the growing cycle.
You got that around backwards. The entire point of certain GMOs is to enable roundup to be used to kill weeds in the crop without affecting the crop itself.
Ie Roundup-ready Cotton (and other Roundup-ready crops that are grown in the US - My family grows Roundup-ready cotton and it has been awesome in terms of improving productivity)
You can't use weedkiller at all in the growing cycle unless you modify the organism against it.
Depends on how you define "cycle" though. It's quite possible to use Roundup on the ground to first kill the weeds, then wait some time for the glyphosate to disintegrate, then plant the crop. Or just use weedkiller on areas outside the planted crop, in order to stop weeds from spreading from outside.
