Rat feeding study suggests the Impossible Burger may not be safe to eat
Rats fed GM yeast-derived protein soy leghemoglobin – the burger’s key ingredient – developed signs of toxicity. Report by Claire Robinson and Dr Michael Antoniou.
SLH is the substance that gives the burger its meaty taste and makes it appear to bleed like meat when cut. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially refused to sign off on the safety of SLH when first approached by the company. The rat feeding study results suggest that the agency’s concerns were justified. Rats fed the GM yeast-derived SLH developed unexplained changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, and possible signs of anaemia.
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20099-rat-feeding-study-suggests-the-impossible-burger-may-not-be-safe-to-eat
= new reply since forum marked as read
but one of my questions would be, how much of this stuff was fed to the rats during the study?
If they developed the symptoms after only one feeding, scaled down to their size, then fine, the stuff is not safe. But how often would people eat the stuff, and how much, proportionately, would be in one or two burgers?
If I paid more attention to these studies, I would have to wonder about them. 
was I able to find credible information on this topic on a short search. You've likely spent more time on this topic, so it'd be very helpful if you would post science-supported information from a respected source.
Btw, my search turned up an entire first screen of GMWatch posts, a tactic often used to push other search results out of sight. Except for the Media Bias Watch evaluation of gmwatch.org, which my Google search on gmwatch.org produced as #1. But I did check another 3 or 4 screens or so and searched on rats, etc, and found confirmation only of the factcheck results.
And definitely personal choice.
Requires more research.
I am careful about what I put into my body, and appreciate the heads up. I do find it impossible to avoid all harmful substances, and do my best to mitigate, limit exposure, and know what I am eating.
We farm (garden, fruit trees, laying hens) organically. I buy only organic veggies and meats - most meat is from local farmers.
I avoid them at all costs.
I mean, no harm in avoiding them, of course, but that's simply not a factual statement.
The reality is, in the vast majority of cases, your body doesn't know the difference, nor react differently whatsoever. SOOOO much of what we eat is 'genetically modified', most of it dating back hundreds of years ... through selective breeding. You may think that's inherently different from what we call GMO, but it's actually very, very similar.
No offense SL, but that idea is woo 
that I'd rather avoid"
Versus
I avoid ALL of them because 'our bodies don't know how to process them'.
The former is logical and if that had been the post, I wouldn't have said a word. The latter is woo.
Also ... "Gene splicing is not the same as much older process of gene selection." may be technically true, it's a distinction w/o difference in a great many cases.
Our bodies don't intrinsically know the difference between a mutation that occurred naturally and was propagated through selective breeding vs. one introduced by gene splicing.
It's just wrong to suggest that they do, esp. in a universal manner as in the post I responded to.
Its not like 'nature' is out there going 'you know, when I create mutations, it's going to be for the BENEFIT of the health of humans, I'll make sure of that!'.
Just because some process is 'older' or some mutation is 'natural' doesn't mean it's benign/beneficial to us. Nature doesn't work that way.
A LOT of 'GMO' tweaks are to do things like thicken the bark of the apple tree so it's better resistant to pests, or make the apple tree's roots branch out more, making the tree more drought-resistant.
In the latter case, in reality the goal is that the only difference in the apple is that it took 4000 gallons of water to produce IDENTICAL apples instead of 5000 gallons (or whatever numbers, you get the point), cause there was deeper roots, for example.
To claim our bodies 'don't know to process the apples' from the 4000 gallon tree, but do with the 5000 gallon tree? That's the kind of thing implied by the post I responded to, and it's bullshit
I don't eat that stuff anymore than I would ingest margerine, for reasons stated.
is supposedly bad for you? But, people who don't eat meat want something that looks and tastes like meat?
I don't eat impossible burgers, because I sometimes eat meat. So, if I crave a burger, I get one made of beef. I don't want an engineered substitute that looks and tastes like meat. I don't have to eat that, so I eat a regular burger if I want a burger.
If I have vegetarian or vegan guests for a meal, I make food they are happy to eat. I don't make something that looks and tastes like meat. Why would I do that? I can make perfectly delightful food that is honestly vegan or vegetarian in nature. I won't be making anything called any sort of "burger," because a burger is made of meat.
I simply do not get it. Some people who eschew meat apparently want their dietary-restricted "burger" to leak red juice that looks like blood. Why? That makes no sense whatsoever.
I'll be happy to cook for anyone who has dietary rules they follow. But, I refuse to make anything that pretends to be something else. That's dishonest, no matter how you look at it. I'll make something very very good, within the parameters of my guest's diet.
