HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Health » Health (Group) » Study linking GM crops an...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:49 AM

Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned.

New Scientist gets called a Monsanto shill in 3, 2, 1...

Are the findings reliable?

There is little to suggest they are. Tom Sanders, head of nutritional research at King's College London, says that the strain of rat the French team used gets breast tumours easily, especially when given unlimited food, or maize contaminated by a common fungus that causes hormone imbalance, or just allowed to age. There were no data on food intake or tests for fungus in the maize, so we don't know whether this was a factor.

But didn't the treated rats get sicker than the untreated rats?

Some did, but that's not the full story. It wasn't that rats fed GM maize or herbicide got tumours, and the control rats did not. Five of the 20 control rats – 25 per cent – got tumours and died, while 60 per cent in "some test groups" that ate GM maize died. Some other test groups, however, were healthier than the controls.

Toxicologists do a standard mathematical test, called the standard deviation, on such data to see whether the difference is what you might expect from random variation, or can be considered significant. The French team did not present these tests in their paper. They used a complicated and unconventional analysis that Sanders calls "a statistical fishing trip".

Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh, UK, adds that in any case, there should be at least as many controls as test rats – there were only 20 of the former and 80 of the latter – to show how variably tumours appear. Without those additional controls, "these results are of no value", he says.


Rest of the article here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned.html

Sounds like the anti-GMO French group that did this study are guilty of bad science in order to get the results they wanted.

64 replies, 7693 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned. (Original post)
Odin2005 Sep 2012 OP
Vincardog Sep 2012 #1
Odin2005 Sep 2012 #3
Chemisse Nov 2012 #56
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #48
proverbialwisdom Nov 2012 #55
HuckleB Sep 2012 #2
HuckleB Oct 2012 #4
Odin2005 Oct 2012 #5
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #6
Odin2005 Oct 2012 #7
HuckleB Oct 2012 #8
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #10
HuckleB Oct 2012 #11
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #14
HuckleB Oct 2012 #15
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #16
HuckleB Oct 2012 #17
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #19
HuckleB Oct 2012 #20
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #23
HuckleB Oct 2012 #24
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #25
HuckleB Oct 2012 #26
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #28
HuckleB Oct 2012 #29
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #32
HuckleB Oct 2012 #33
Chemisse Nov 2012 #57
HuckleB Nov 2012 #60
Chemisse Nov 2012 #62
HuckleB Nov 2012 #63
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #9
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #12
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #13
HuckleB Oct 2012 #18
HuckleB Oct 2012 #21
HuckleB Oct 2012 #22
mzmolly Oct 2012 #27
Odin2005 Oct 2012 #30
mzmolly Oct 2012 #31
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #34
Odin2005 Oct 2012 #35
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #40
HuckleB Oct 2012 #36
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #37
HuckleB Oct 2012 #39
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #38
HuckleB Oct 2012 #41
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #42
HuckleB Oct 2012 #43
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #44
HuckleB Oct 2012 #45
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #46
HuckleB Oct 2012 #47
sense Oct 2012 #49
proverbialwisdom Nov 2012 #50
Celebration Nov 2012 #51
HuckleB Nov 2012 #52
sense Nov 2012 #53
HuckleB Nov 2012 #54
Chemisse Nov 2012 #58
HuckleB Nov 2012 #59
Chemisse Nov 2012 #61
HuckleB Nov 2012 #64

Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:41 PM

1. The pro-GMO scientists as always are pure as the driven snow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:58 AM

3. That's not a very scientific attitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:06 PM

56. Neither is this:

"Sounds like the anti-GMO French group that did this study are guilty of bad science."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 12:07 PM

48. Naturally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/magazine/why-californias-proposition-37-should-matter-to-anyone-who-cares-about-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Vote for the Dinner Party

Is this the year that the food movement finally enters politics?

By MICHAEL POLLAN

Published October 10, 2012


<...>

Surely this explains why Monsanto and its allies have fought the labeling of genetically modified food so vigorously since 1992, when the industry managed to persuade the Food and Drug Administration — over the objection of its own scientists — that the new crops were “substantially equivalent” to the old and so did not need to be labeled, much less regulated. This represented a breathtaking exercise of both political power (the F.D.A. policy was co-written by a lawyer whose former firm worked for Monsanto) and product positioning: these new crops were revolutionary enough (a “new agricultural paradigm,” Monsanto said) to deserve patent protection and government support, yet at the same time the food made from them was no different than it ever was, so did not need to be labeled. It’s worth noting that ours was one of only a very few governments ever sold on this convenient reasoning: more than 60 other countries have seen fit to label genetically modified food, including those in the European Union, Japan, Russia and China.

<...>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:57 PM

55. "Don't ask, don't tell."


http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14468:doctor-speaks-on-seralini-gmo-safety-and-industry-qscienceq

Doctor speaks on Seralini, GMO safety, and industry "science"
Thursday, 22 November 2012 22:52


Misinformed by "science"
John Day, MD
The Automatic Earth
September 2012


<>

Yes, this is ALL Monsanto data we are discussing, and it is 12 years old, and it has been kept secret, pried out by Greenpeace lawsuits and such.

We only have Monsanto data to talk about here, but now, after more than a decade, the raw data and methods are available for review.

<>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 10:58 AM

4. Kick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:28 PM

5. + Infinity!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 07:01 PM

6. Not so fast.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26340.cfm

Exposing Monsanto's Junk Science "Experts'
GM Watch, September 27, 2012


Straight to the Source: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14239-science-media-centre-qexpertsq-who-attacked-seralinis-study-2-maurice-moloney

Overview:

1. Expert reaction to GM maize causing tumours in rats: Prof Maurice Moloney
2. GMWatch response to Moloney's comment
3. GMWatch profile of Maurice Moloney



NOTE: The UK's Science Media Centre was originally set up in the wake of the Pusztai affair to try to ensure more sympathetic media coverage for GM, among other issues.

The UK media's largely muted coverage of the Seralini research, which found increased tumour rates, mortality, and liver and kidney pathology in rats fed GM maize NK603 and/or Roundup herbicide, shows the extent to which the SMC and a similar organisation, Sense About Science, have succeeded in damaging balanced and investigative reporting on technology-related issues in the UK.

Both bodies take some of their funding from the corporations whose products they defend. In the SMC's case this has included Monsanto, among other biotech interests.

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Science_Media_Centre
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Sense_About_Science

The SMC uses the infamous "third-party" PR technique, in which views are given authority by being placed in the mouths of seemingly independent experts. Such people tend to be trusted more by the public and the media. But why some journalists can't do a little basic research into these experts' backgrounds as well as the truth or otherwise of what they are saying, is baffling.

The SMC was quick off the mark in issuing responses by "experts" to Seralini's research. When we looked into the background of the 8 named experts in the SMC's media release, we quickly discovered that seven of them had significant conflicts of interest which went unmentioned by the SMC.

http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14224

The first expert quoted by the SMC was Prof Maurice Moloney, Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research. Moloney famously drives a Porsche with a GMO number plate and has a c.v. to match. It is Moloney's GM research that lies behind Monsanto's GM canola (oilseed rape). He also launched his own GM company in which Dow AgroSciences was an investor. In other words, Moloney's career and business activities are heavily dependent on the public acceptance of GM (see item 3).

What makes matters worse is that his criticisms of Seralini's study are not even scientifically sound. But they did their job. Jonathan Amos, science correspondent for the BBC, repeated some of the same arguments put forward by Moloney and his fellow SMC "experts" (now voiced by Monsanto too in its rebuttal of Seralini's study) in his article on Seralini's research, although they are largely attributed only to unnamed "independent scientists".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825

SMC quotes were widely used in global media coverage. Below (item 1) is Moloney's quote in full, as provided by the SMC, followed by our response (item 2).

Our response to another of the SMC's widely quoted "experts", Prof Tom Sanders, is here: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14225

---
---
1. Expert reaction to GM maize causing tumours in rats: Prof Maurice Moloney
Science Media Centre press release
19 Sept 2012


http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/12-09-19_gm_maize_rats_tumours.htm

Prof Maurice Moloney, Institute Director and Chief Executive , Rothamsted Research, said:

"Although this paper has been published in a peer–reviewed journal with an IF of about 3, there are anomalies throughout the paper that normally should have been corrected or resolved through the peer-review process. For a paper with such potentially important findings, it would have been more satisfying to have seen something with a more conventional statistical analysis. A comparison of each measured parameter, which took into account the variance throughout the experiment, which would have been revealed using a multiple range test, would have provided better evidence for the concluding remarks and the abstract. Figure 1 does not provide any data from the controls and their variance is unreported here. Table 2 reports different numbers of individuals used for the controls than the treatments. In all cases the controls have used less individuals than used in the treatments. The data in Table 2 do not show confidence intervals or provide evidence of significant differences between all the treatments and the controls. The lack of a dose response effect is argued by the authors to be indicative of a "threshold" effect. This is an extrapolation of their findings and could only be determined by intermediate dosing. The photographs are very graphic, but do not include a control. Sprague-Dawley rats frequently develop mammary tumours in well-fed controls. Are we to conclude from this that no controls developed tumours? Numerically, we cannot tell, because they are absent also from Figure 2. We are performing a more detailed analysis of the statistics in relation to the conclusions, but for the present it is fair to point out that normally a referee would insist on showing the control data and its variance in such a study."

---
---
2. GMWatch response to Moloney's comment

MOLONEY: "In all cases the controls have used less individuals than used in the treatments."

GMW: This is untrue. The rats in the experiment were divided into 10 groups of 20 animals each (10 male + 10 female), with nine of the groups exposed to Roundup or NK603. In line with standard practice, the control group was matched in size to the experimental groups. Each experimental group was 20 animals (10 male + 10 female) and therefore the control group (not exposed to NK603 or Roundup) was 20 animals (10 male + 10 female).

MOLONEY: "The lack of a dose response effect is argued by the authors to be indicative of a 'threshold' effect. This is an extrapolation of their findings and could only be determined by intermediate dosing."

GMW: Moloney is upset by what's known as a nonlinear dose-response relationship of NK603 maize and Roundup. In other words, the toxic effects don't increase uniformly as the dose increases. In Seralini's study, the lowest doses of NK603 and Roundup produced a toxic effect and this didn't increase proportionally as the dose increased.

It's high time Moloney woke up to the weird and wonderful world of hormone-related toxic effects (substances that cause these effects are called endocrine disruptors). These substances can have toxic effects at very low doses and some can have toxic effects at low doses but not at high doses (nonlinear dose-response relationship).

The science of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is not new - scientists have been pumping out peer-reviewed papers on the topic since the 1990s. But there are plenty of friends of the GM and chemical industries who still like to pretend that low-dose effects and nonlinear dose-response relationships only exist in the fevered imaginations of activists and what they call "chemophobes".

Why? Because EDCs turn the assumptions on which risk assessment of toxics is based on their heads. But that's a topic in itself...

There's less excuse for the ignorance of the UK media's science correspondents, who should catch up on two decades' worth of scientific research that apparently has passed them by.

MOLONEY: "Sprague-Dawley rats frequently develop mammary tumours in well-fed controls. Are we to conclude from this that no controls developed tumours?"

GMW: The "tumour-prone rat" argument is being repeated uncritically everywhere, though it is completely unscientific.

The long answer is here: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14217

The short answer is as follows. How "prone" the rat strain is to tumours is scientifically irrelevant. What matters in a controlled scientific experiment is the increase in tumour rates in the treated (exposed) groups over and above the controls.

By analogy, a small proportion of people who never smoke get lung cancer. If you smoke, your risk of getting lung cancer is 12 times higher than if you don't smoke. The measurement is called a "relative risk". So, imagine that there is an ethnic group of people with a higher rate of naturally occurring lung cancer. If people in that group smoke, their rate of lung cancer will still increase like everybody else.

In Seralini's experiments, the treated rats got more tumours than the controls. And there are some additional important factors. The tumours in treated rats were detected much earlier (four months in males; seven months in females). They grew much faster and many animals had two or even three tumours. In the control rats the tumours appeared much later and at most there was one tumour per animal, if any.

Insofar as the relative "prone-ness" of the particular strain/origin of rat that Seralini used is relevant – and it isn't - Seralini researched it and controlled for that factor, as he states in his paper. Result: still significantly increased tumours in treated groups.

Moloney's question, "Are we to conclude from this that no controls developed tumours?" suggests that he hasn't even read Seralini's paper. That might seem a possibility as he was commenting on this complex study just hours after it was released.

Seralini's paper clearly says: "Up to 14 months, no animals in the control groups showed any signs of tumors whilst 10–30% of treated females per group developed tumors, with the exception of one group (33% GMO + R). By the beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls were affected. The R treatment groups showed the greatest rates of tumor incidence with 80% of animals affected with up to 3 tumors for one female, in each group."

It's OK to be confused. What's not OK is to publish your confusion to the media under the guise of a damning "expert" comment on a scientific study that took a team of scientists years to research and write up.

The greatest condemnation, however, must be reserved for those science correspondents who uncritically swallow what they are fed by the SMC. In many cases, they gave more column inches to the unscientific opinions of the SMC "experts" than to the paper itself.
---
---
3. GMWatch profile of Maurice Moloney (summary)

Sources here: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Maurice_Moloney

Maurice Moloney has been the Director and Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research since 15 April 2010. He was the Chief Scientific Officer of SemBioSys Genetics Inc., a post that he left on March 25, 2010, remaining a consultant to SemBioSys. SemBioSys is a plant biotech company well known for its controversial work on pharma crops (eg producing insulin from safflower seeds). A GM pharma specialist, Moloney worked at SemBioSys on deriving a blood anti-coagulant, hirudin, from GM canola.

Previously, Moloney led the Cell Biology group at Calgene, acquired by Monsanto in 1997. At Calgene he developed the world's first transgenic oilseeds, which resulted in RoundUp Ready Canola and other novel crops. Moloney holds more than 300 patents.

He is a professor at the University of Calgary, where he holds the NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada/DowElanco Chair in Plant Biotechnology.

The director of GMWatch, Jonathan Matthews, wrote in an article for Spinwatch about Rothamsted's industry alignment under Moloney's directorship:

"This industry alignment is perfectly illustrated by Rothamsted itself, which partners up with corporations like Bayer, Syngenta and Dupont. It also has an Institute Director who not only drives a Porsche with a GMO number plate but has a c.v. to match. It is Maurice Moloney's GM research that lies behind Monsanto's GM oilseed rape. He is the inventor of more than 300 patents and prior to Rothamsted, he also successfully launched his own GM company in Canada - SemBioSys Genetics Inc., in which Dow Agro Science were investors. This was flagged up by the BBSRC when they appointed Moloney in a press release praising his 'effective translation of research into successful business activity.'

A picture of Moloney's GMO-labelled Porsche can be seen on the Spinwatch website.

Prof Joe Cummins, professor emeritus of genetics at the University of Western Ontario, commented on Moloney's history at SemBioSys and his appointment at Rothamsted:

"Professor Maurice Moloney and his company SemBioSys have focused on producing pharmaceuticals in the oil crops canola (rapeseed) and safflower. In the early efforts a blood thinning peptide called hirudin was produced in canola and had open field tests in the canola growing area of the province Alberta. Hirudin is extremely toxic if consumed even in small quantities by humans or animals. Such open field tests should not have been allowed as the canola pollen is spread widely producing persistent drug pollution of the food and feed crop.

"Currently safflower-grown human insulin has been open field tested in the state of Washington in a sagebrush wild area of the state which is the habitat for a number of threatened wild species that can be poisoned by ingesting insulin. It is safe to say that Maurice ... will likely spread the gospel of producing pharmaceuticals in food crops as it is done in Canada. In Canada and the United States open field tests of crop bio pharmaceuticals are undertaken with little or no respect for the environmental consequences of the open field releases. UK can now likely look forward to biopharmacueticals in their food, whether they like it or not!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:43 PM

7. Nice "sources" you got there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #7)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 10:45 PM

8. But, but...

Wait. As long as I keep posting links, isn't my opinion correct?

Hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 11:53 AM

10. My opinion? It's scientist vs. scientist / industry's fading efforts to censor independent research.

EXCERPT: A study last year in the journal Pediatrics found that about one in 13 children had a food allergy, and nearly 40 percent of those with allergies had severe reactions.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/business/mylan-invests-in-epipen-as-child-allergies-increase.html?pagewanted=all

September 7, 2012
Tiny Lifesaver for a Growing Worry
By KATIE THOMAS


It has become an all-too-familiar story in schools across the country: a child eats a peanut or is stung by a bee and suffers an immediate, life-threatening allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis.

<...>

Although no one knows exactly why, the rate of food allergies among children appears to be on the rise. One survey found that in 2008, one in 70 children was allergic to peanuts, compared with one in 250 in 1997.

“I don’t think it’s overdiagnosis,” said Dr. Scott H. Sicherer, the author of the report and a researcher at the Jaffe Food Allergy Institute at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan. “There really seems to be a difference.”

A study last year in the journal Pediatrics found that about one in 13 children had a food allergy, and nearly 40 percent of those with allergies had severe reactions. A recent survey in Massachusetts, where schools are permitted to administer epinephrine to any student, found that one-quarter of students who had to be given the drug for a reaction did not know they had an allergy. But in many schools, employees are not allowed to use epinephrine injectors on children who do not have a prescription.

<...>


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 11:56 AM

11. The scientific consensus is clearly against your opinion.

You can play the usual logical fallacy games, but those have all been shown be nonsense before, so no one is going to to buy them.

http://www.science20.com/science_20/gmos_are_pesticide_sponge_and_other_weird_tales_gilleseric_seralini-94307

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 05:23 PM

14. Correct

and the elimination of any scientist who questioned the technology began in the 1980's with a purge within the land grant universities in the US.

And these guys are brutal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #14)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 08:29 PM

15. Nope.

Consensus says otherwise. Conspiracy theories are not evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 09:00 PM

16. Well I personally know 3 professors

Who were let go for this reason and each of them know more. You know I lived through all of these purges. And they were purges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 01:51 PM

17. Uh huh.

How many of the usual conspiracy theory techniques are you going to use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #17)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:47 PM

19. Post some data



Science is about reproducible data, not beliefs.

I have been waiting for 25 years for this data. The industry has had plenty of time to do some studies, don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:49 PM

20. You keep saying you're waiting, but you're not.

We both know that. Why do you pretend?

Here's another nibble for you: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691506000093

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 10:45 PM

23. This is not a nibble, this is exactly what I want to see

links to articles- but I want to see the whole thing- I am not going to pay the ~$40.

I am offended that you keep insulting me. Please stop it.

And I want to see more of these, peer reviewed.

I want to see links to studies showing soil microorganism infection or lack of infection. Intestinal flora infection, etc.

This is exactly what I want to see- studies. More of them, short and longterm. I wanted to see them before the products were released and produced. I am glad that they are beginning to come out at last.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #23)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 02:30 AM

24. So you admit that you simply haven't bothered to research the issue.

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 03:20 PM

25. Your rudeness is unacceptable

If you cannot be civil, then I think you should refrain from posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #25)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 03:23 PM

26. You have been less than honest.

How is that acceptable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #26)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:12 PM

28. What are you talking about?

If you cannot be civil with posters in this group, then you should stop posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #28)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 05:13 PM

29. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Take a long look in the mirror, and get back to us when you are ready to discuss something of concern in an intellectually honest manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #29)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 03:23 PM

32. Your tone is so unnecessarily rude

and it does not speak well for the industry that you defend.

I am delighted to at last see some studies. I want to see more. They should have been done prior to the release of these plants back in the early 90's. 20 years later is a bit odd, but always better late than never. A good start.

The business people's desire to avoid regulatory obligations destroyed the credibility of the scientists doing the work.

All scientists want studies showing safety. Only businesspeople wish to avoid them for financial reasons.

Because studies were not done upfront and clearly the entire industry has been negatively effected. It may never recover, but if it is going to, it will take real work, open studies and not rude or bullying replies to honest questions





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #32)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 03:30 PM

33. Thanks for continuing to push the usual logical fallacies.

You also appear to be continuing to make claims that you can't support.

Now, I have been matter of fact. It's too bad that you can't accept that.

Keep attacking. Let's see some more ad hominem routines. Those really add to the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:12 PM

57. HuckleB is always rude.

It's not really worth it to discuss anything with him/her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #57)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:11 PM

60. Get a mirror.

I'm not rude except when you and your pseudo-science pals go ad hominem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #60)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:00 PM

62. Which, in your rigid world view, is any post without an authoritarian stamp of approval

But hey, some people think for themselves, and some people follow the leaders.

Thanks for conceding that you are rude, by the way. The first step is to admit you have a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #62)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:13 PM

63. And the ad hominem nonsense keeps coming.

I'm sorry the evidence is against your preconceived notions.

However, that doesn't have anything to do with me, personally, regardless of how hard you try to pretend otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #7)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 11:46 AM

9. How about these?

Last edited Tue Oct 2, 2012, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)


PULLED


TRAILER


From the website:

http://www.scientistsunderattack.com/


Dr. Árpád Pusztai

In 1996 and 1997, Dr. Pusztai and his co-worker and wife Dr. Susan Bardócz carried out the first carefully designed and highly sensitive nutrition and toxicologiocal feeding study testing a genetically modified food, potatoes engineered to express the snowdrop lectin gene. When he discussed their findings in an interview broadcast on January 13, 1998 as part of the evening BBC news, a series of events was triggered that have profoundly impacted scientific and public attitudes about GM foods.

Just days after the interview, Dr. Pusztai was relieved of his duties by the director of the Rowett Research Institute, had his laboratory notes confiscated, and was in effect banned from any further interaction with his colleagues at Rowett, where the experiment had been conducted. His wife was then the manager of the division of the Rowett Institute within which the work was carried out. She, too, lost her job over the controversy triggered by the article.

In its October 16, 1999 issue, the respected British medical journal The Lancet published the Pusztai study results, in an article co-authored with Dr. Stanley Ewen. The research was subjected to an unprecedented two-year campaign of criticism carried out by proponents of GM technology. The U.K. Royal Society played an active role in organizing and publicizing criticisms of the Pusztai-Ewen experiment. The Lancet subsequently published a series of letters raising various questions and criticisms, to which Pusztai and Ewen responded fully. The validity of their study and its findings remain intact. To this day, the Pusztai-Ewen experiment remains the most sensitive and rigorous GM food feeding trial ever conducted.

Pusztai, Ewen and Bardócz knew very little about GM technology when they successfully competed for the $1.2 million grant from the Scottish government that supported their GM potato feeding study. They discussed the results of this research in much the same way as they had discussed the results of dozens of earlier studies. They did not anticipate the events that would be triggered by their work and a brief report on the evening BBC news program.

Account written by Dr. Charles Benbrook, director of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center and manager of the AgBiotech InfoNet, based in Sandpoint, Idaho.

The Lancet coverage of the controversy:

May 29, 1999: An editorial raises the importance of growing debate over GM food safety and mentions basic findings of Pusztai research, quoting Pusztai's comment in an interview that he would not eat the GM potatoes himself, and that it is "very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guineapigs." This ediorial appears over five months before the publication by "The Lancet" of the Ewen-Pusztai paper on the GM potato experiment.

Born in Hungary, he received his degree in chemistry in Budapest and his B.Sc. in physiology and Ph.D. in biochemistry at the University of London. His career spans 50 years and work at universities and research institutes in Budapest, London, Chicago and Aberdeen (Rowett Research Institute). He has published nearly 300 peer-reviewed papers and wrote or edited 12 scientific books.

During the past 30 years, Dr. Pusztai he has pioneered research into the effects of dietary lectins (carbohydrate-reactive proteins), including those transgenically expressed in GM crop plants, on the gastrointestinal tract. His laboratory research on the nutritional and developmental impacts of a transgenic potato with increased natural pest protection has raised public and scientific inquiry in Europe. His October 16, 1999 study results, co-authored with Dr. Stanley Ewen and published in the respected British medical Journal The Lancet, remains the most sensitive and rigorous GM food feeding trial ever conducted.

Since 1998, Dr. Pusztai has been lecturing and acting as a consultant to groups exploring research in the area of health effects of GM foods. He is currently serving as a consultant to the Norwegian Food Sciences Institute.

His seminal article on the impacts of GM potatoes on rats appeared in The Lancet, Oct. 16, 1999, Vol. 354, No. 9187, pages 1353-1354.

Pusztai has co-authored a chapter in the book, Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins , Chapter 16, Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects.



Dr. Ignacio Chapela

In the spring of 2001 NATURE does something that it had never done before. For the first time in 137 years, the world's most important science magazine actually retracts a published article. This is very strange and very worrying - a scientist is under attack for doing his job.

The renowned biologist Dr Ignacio Chapela has submitted this article a few months earlier. It is about cross-pollination of Mexico's indigenous maize by GM varieties, but the magazine issue has not even finished being distributed when the editors are inundated with a flood of angry e-mails. Ignacio's research scientific qualifications and integrity are called into question. Why has a seemingly normal scientific paper caused such a fuss?

Then GUARDIAN journalists George Monbiot and Claire Robinson discover that all of the letters behind this calumny campaign trace back to one single source: the BIVINGS GROUP, an advertising agency.

They also find out that the agency is paid by MONSANTO, the giant multi-national chemicals and seed corporation. Monsanto has commissioned the BIVINGS GROUP to carry out a viral marketing campaign proudly lauded on their homepage as an effective and modern advertising strategy to "Infect the world!” Fictitious opinions and letters from non-existent persons are computer-generated and flood the addressee's inbox. The next question is obvious: Why is the Monsanto corporation so bent on discrediting Dr Chapela's research?

In 2001 Mexican-born Ignacio Chapela has found out that the indigenous maize of Oaxaca province, despite official protection by the Mexican government, has been significantly mixed with genetically manipulated maize. This is a significant discovery, for Oaxaca is not just a spot on the map. This is the genetic reservoir of different varieties of indigenous maize for the whole world, and it was from here that maize set out to conquer the world 5,000 years ago. Ignacio's discovery is highly alarming and Monsanto's response shows that he has hit the weak spot of companies involved in genetic engineering. He undermines the idea of co-existence, the belief propagated by the genetic engineering industry that natural plants can grow next to genetically manipulated plants without any cross-pollination.

However Monsanto aren't content with forcing Nature to bow to imaginary pressure and retract the article - they go after Ignacio himself. Because of his remarkable international career Chapela is expected to be granted professorship and tenure at the University of Berkeley. But he is rejected "for financial reasons" at the end of 2004 and suddenly finds himself in a situation where both his position as a scientist and his livelihood are in jeopardy.

So is Monsanto's suppression of the uncomfortable facts about cross-pollination between GM and normal crops a one off storm in a scientific teacup? Definitely not. What Ignacio found is a great danger to everybody's good in threatening the biodiversity of our plants, the safety of our food and the environment.

Already once before, Chapela waged a fight for freedom in doing research that uncomfortably got in the way of the genetic engineering industry.

Chapela objected to an agreement in which the department and faculty of Plant and Microbial Biology at UC Berkeley took money from Novartis in exchange for a degree of publication scrutiny and trade secrecy, taking a strong position on the issue.

Chapela was initially denied tenure at UC Berkeley in 2003. Supporters claim that this stems from opposition to Chapela's anti-Novartis activism from Molecular and Cell Biology faculty member Jasper Rine, who was both a member of the tenure committee and in a research relationship with the company. However, Chapela was ultimately awarded tenure in 2005.

Chapela has also spoken out against the deal between UC Berkeley, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and British Petroleum to research the development of biofuels, which may involve genetically engineering microorganisms and plants. The grant went into effect in 2007.

Chapela founded The Mycological Facility in Oaxaca state, a facility dealing with questions of natural resources and indigenous rights, and collaborates with indigenous communities in Mexico, Costa Rica, and Ecuador on issues of rights to genetic resources. He is also an advisory board member for The Sunshine Project, an organization promoting citizens' concerns with biosafety and biowarfare.

He has appeared in several films on genetically modified organism and food systems issues, „The World According to Monsanto“, „The Future of Food“ and „Scientists under Attack – Genetic engineering in the magnetic field of money“ (2010), produced and directed by Bertram Verhaag, Denkmal-Film.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 12:45 PM

12. Youtube version unavailable.

I bought it here: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/scientists-under-attack

INFO BELOW FROM YOUTUBE PAGE FOR OFFICIAL TRAILER (url posts as video)

Download/stream the whole movie: http://www.onlinefilm.org/en_EN/film/52070
(Don't be confused by the german title, it is the english version!) NOT, sorry.


http://www.onlinefilm.org/en_EN/film/52070

Teaser
A film about courage, secrecy and danger

Synopsis
Árpád Pusztai and Ignacio Chapela have two things in common. They are distinguished scientists and their careers are in ruins. Both scientists choose to look at the phenomenon of genetic engineering. Both made important discoveries. Both of them are suffering the fate of those who criticise the powerful vested interests that now dominate big business and scientific research...


Awards
(2010) THE INDIE FEST 2010: BEST DOCUMENTARY, La Jolla
(2010) TOP TEN FILMS AT KANSAS INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL , Kansas
(2010) AT&T AWARD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP, Los Angeles
(2010) THE COLUMBUS INSTITUTE FOR CONTEMPORARY JOURNALISM AWARD , Columbus
(2010) ACCOLADE AWARD: BEST DOCUMENTARY
(2010) BEST FEATURE DOCUMENTARY AT MAVERICK MOVIE AWARDS , Meriden
(2010) BEST ORIGINAL SCORE AT MAVERICK MOVIE AWARDS , Meriden
(2011) SALUS JOURNALIST AWARD , Munich

Festivals
(2009) Festival Internacional de Cine Documental (MIRADASDOCS), Teneriffa
(2009) International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA), Amsterdam
(2010) Ökofilmtour 2010 , Deutschland
(2010) International Festival of Audivisual Programs (FIPA), Paris/Biarritz
(2010) Thessaloniki Doc Market, Thessaloniki
(2010) International Film Festival Oxford (OX DOCS), Oxford
(2010) Natur Vision, Neuschönau
(2010) Durban Int. Film Festival , Durban
(2010) 5 Seen Festival, Bayern
(2010) New York International Film Festival, New York
(2010) Columbia Gorge International Film Festival, Washougal
(2010) Kos International Film Festival, Kos
(2010) Central Florida Film Festival, Orlando
(2010) Green Screen, Eckernförde
(2010) Milano Film Festival, Mailand
(2010) Filmtage zum Recht auf Nahrung, Wien
(2010) Columbus International Film and Video Festival (Chris Awards), Columbus
(2010) Ekotopfilm, Pressburg
(2010) Festival du nouveau de cinema Montreal, Montreal
(2010) 2nd CNEX Documentary Film Festival, Taipei
(2010) Festival de liberties , Belgium
(2010) UNAFF 10, Stanford
(2010) Atlantis Film Festival, Wiesbaden
(2010) Kansas Film Festival, Kansas City
(2010) International Festival of Sustainable Development Films (ekotopfilm), Bratislava
(2010) DOCUTAH Film Festival, St. George
(2010) Tacoma Film Festival, Tacoma
(2010) Chagrin Falls International Documenttary Festival, Chagrin Falls
(2010) Southern Appalachian International Film Festival, Erwin
(2010) Louisville International Fest of Film , Studio City
(2010) Arpa International Film Festival, Los Angeles
(2010) Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival, St Augustine Beach
(2010) The Indie Fest, La Jolla
(2010) Silk City Flick Fest, Hartford
(2010) Santa Fe Independent Film Festival, Santa Fe
(2010) Twin Cities Film Fest, Minneapolis
(2010) East Silver Film Festival , Jihlava
(2010) Planet in Focus Film Festival, Toronto
(2010) Globale Mittelhessen, Marburg
(2010) Forum International Medias Nord Sud , Burkina Faso
(2011) Festival Tutti nello stresso piatto, Trento
(2011) Maverick Movie Awards, Meriden
(2011) Wild and Scenic Film Festival, Nevada City
(2011) United Nations Assoiciation Film Festival, Worldwide
(2011) International Human Rights Festival, Paris
(2011) Beloit International Film Festival, Beloit
(2011) Sedona Film Festival, Sedona, USA
(2011) Pan African Film Festival, Los Angeles
(2011) Peace on Earth Film Festival, Chicago
(2011) New Hope Film Festival, New Hope
(2011) European Film Festival, Palic
(2011) SunChild International Environmental Festival , Yerevan
(2011) Science en Bobines, Belgium
(2011) International Film Festival on Organic Farming, Japan
(2011) Eco Festival, Serbia
(2012) Bellingham Human Rights Film Festival, Bellingham
(2012) International Health Film Festival ImagéSanté, Liège

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 05:19 PM

13. If the industry that produces these products wishes

to run peer reviewed studies that prove their products are safe, then they should do that.

To criticize other's attempts while offering no facts or studies is simply bullying.

Which this industry is very good at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:28 PM

18. Nice try.

Please try to offer honest criticism sometime. That really seems like the least one could do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 08:15 PM

22. A very good piece about GE crops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 03:25 PM

27. I think if anything caused tumors it was the

pesticides.

I'll await more studies before drawing conclusions. Regardless, I'll never believe that making plants tolerant of copious amounts of Round-Up, is better for the public, or our environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzmolly (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:12 PM

30. I agree completely.

I've been saying for a while that the real problem is the Glyphosate, not the GMOs. I've seen articles saying that it's associated with ADHD and lowered IQ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #30)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 02:51 PM

31. I don't doubt it.

I buy organic fruit ala the dirty dozen list from EWG

http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary/

Organic apples, oranges and strawberries are generally worlds better than their non-organic counter parts. Well worth supporting the organic movement with a few extra bucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 12:44 PM

34. The saga of 'Scientist' vs Scientist with and without the benefit of the internet. Oh, snap.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14296:pusztai-hitman-oversaw-efsas-demolition-of-seralini

Pusztai nemesis oversaw EFSA's demolition of Seralini
Wednesday, 10 October 2012 11:50



France's former Environment Minister, Corinne Lepage MEP, is among those who have flagged up serious concerns about the European Food Safety Authority's rejection of Seralini's long-term study on the toxicity of Monsanto's GM maize NK603 and its pesticide Roundup.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14293

The concerns centre on the fact that EFSA seems to be applying standards to Seralini's study that it fails to apply to the far less adequate studies underlying its own GM crop approvals, and that EFSA appears to be trying to stifle debate and sweep the Seralini study under the carpet rather than asking for further investigation of the issue.

Why, in the words of Jean-Luc Bennahmias MEP, is EFSA not asking "for a major long-term study to be carried out by a panel of scientists with different viewpoints, scientifically irreproachable, with sample sizes sufficiently large for us to see more clearly, so that we can judge and act on the basis of knowledge?"

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14295

But there is another serious concern being raised about EFSA's rapid review of Seralini's study, and this is the fact that Andrew Chesson from EFSA's GMO panel was one of only two people appointed by EFSA to oversee that review. Chesson, Lepage notes, was not only on the EFSA panel that originally approved the GM maize NK603 for consumption in 2003, but helped prepare the draft document recommending its approval, so Chesson was being asked to oversee a review of a study that suggested he personally might have made a terrible mistake that has put the health of millions of European consumers at risk.

<...>

But there is yet another disturbing aspect to Chesson's key role in EFSA's review that hasn't been picked up on by the French media. This is the fact that Andrew Chesson has previous(ly played a decisive role) when it come to discrediting high profile research that raises serious questions about GM food safety and regulation.

Chesson played a leading role in discrediting the research of his former colleague Dr Arpad Pusztai. It was Chesson who chaired the audit committee which found fault with Pusztai, and which later rejected Pusztai's detailed response to its audit. He is identified as the person in charge of the audit here:

http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/gmaudit7.htm

By rejecting Dr Pusztai's conclusions, Chesson's audit report not only rubbished the research but effectively justified Pusztai having been forced to retire after expressing concerns about GM.

*****However*****, when an independent panel of scientists from 13 different countries, led by Prof E. Van Driessche of the Laboratory of Protein Chemistry, Vrije University, Brussels, subsequently reviewed Chesson's audit report, they found serious fault with it, even suggesting its selection of data had been made with a view to disproving Dr Pusztai's conclusions.

http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover8.html

And part of Pusztai's research showing harm from GM potatoes, i.e. the same research which Chesson's Audit Committee claimed hadn't provided a basis for Pusztai's expressions of concern about GM, was subsequently successfully peer reviewed (with double the number of normal peer reviewers) and published in The Lancet.

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai

So, could anyone have been less suited to overseeing the review of Seralini's study than Andrew Chesson – judge, jury, and a known executioner?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #34)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 12:53 PM

35. Spamming shit sources doesn't work on me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #35)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:43 PM

40. Short video, perhaps?

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2012/10/09/watch-stars-ask-public-to-vote-yes-gmo-labeling-with-prop-37/



Danny Devito, Dave Mathews, Emily Dechanel, Bill Maher, John Cho, Glenn Howerton, Kaitlin Olson, KaDee Strickland and Kristin Bauer van Straten use some reverse psychology to say that you don’t need to know what goes into your food. So what that China, Japan, Europe and other countries require foods with GMOs to be labeled. In America, we can’t handle that kind of information so best to let the companies worry about our health and for us just to trust them. Sounds like a good health plan, right? Yeah. Not so much.



Link from http://organicconsumers.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #34)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:10 PM

36. Please don't push discredited pseudo-science as being equivalent. It's not.

First, let's point out the fallacy of false equivalency.

No, you’re not entitled to your opinion
http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Then, let's clarify that the consensus on the study in the OP is that it is crap.

EU rejects French scientist report linking GM corn to cancer
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/eu-rejects-french-scientist-report-linking-gm-corn-cancer-article-1.1175725?localLinksEnabled=false

Damning Report Questions Monsanto Genetically Modified Corn Study
http://www.citywatchla.com/component/content/article/317-8box-right/3879-damning-report-questions-monsanto-genetically-modified-corn-study

Then, let's start to acknowledge that DU should be a place science is first and foremost, and where pseudo-science attacks should be few and far between.

GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

Rachel Carson’s dream of a science-based agriculture may come as a surprise to those who believe that sustainability and technology are incompatible.
http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2012/09/24/rachel-carsons-dream-of-a-science-based-agriculture-may-come-as-a-surprise-to-those-who-believe-that-sustainability-and-technology-are-incompatible/


It not ethical to spread fear via pseudo-science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #36)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:25 PM

37. Too much reading? Here, I'll it abbreviate for you.



PART 2

Chesson played a leading role in discrediting the research of his former colleague Dr Arpad Pusztai. It was Chesson who chaired the audit committee which found fault with Pusztai, and which later rejected Pusztai's detailed response to its audit. He is identified as the person in charge of the audit here:

http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/gmaudit7.htm

By rejecting Dr Pusztai's conclusions, Chesson's audit report not only rubbished the research but effectively justified Pusztai having been forced to retire after expressing concerns about GM.

*****However*****, when an independent panel of scientists from 13 different countries, led by Prof E. Van Driessche of the Laboratory of Protein Chemistry, Vrije University, Brussels, subsequently reviewed Chesson's audit report, they found serious fault with it, even suggesting its selection of data had been made with a view to disproving Dr Pusztai's conclusions.

http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover8.html

And part of Pusztai's research showing harm from GM potatoes, i.e. the same research which Chesson's Audit Committee claimed hadn't provided a basis for Pusztai's expressions of concern about GM, was subsequently successfully peer reviewed (with double the number of normal peer reviewers) and published in The Lancet.

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai

So, could anyone have been less suited to overseeing the review of Seralini's study than Andrew Chesson – judge, jury, and a known executioner?



LINK CITED ABOVE:

http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover8.html

Peer review vindicates scientist let go for "improper" warning about genetically modified food
March 11, 1999


<...>

Now, an independent panel of 23 scientists from 13 countries led by Professor E. Van Driessche of the Laboratory of Protein Chemistry, Vrije University, Brussels has reviewed the Audit Report and a report prepared independently by Dr. Pusztai. In its review (PULLED http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/404/ ), the panel states that although the results included in the report appeared to be arbitrarily selected with a view to disproving Dr. Pusztai's conclusions, they nevertheless "showed very clearly that the transgenic GNA-potato had significant effects on immune function and this alone is sufficient to vindicate entirely Dr. Pusztai's statements." The review panel further concluded that the data contained in the Audit Report and a report prepared independently by Dr. Pusztai would be suitable for publication, i.e., in a peer-reviewed journal. Specifically, the review panel stated that "although some of the results are preliminary, they are sufficient to exonerate Dr. Pusztai by showing that the consumption of GNA-GM-potatoes by rats let to significant differences in organ weight and depression of lymphocyte responsiveness compared to controls."

Recognizing, presumably, a legitimate concern about the safety of genetically modified food, a European directive is now in preparation that will require food suppliers to label genetically modified products. Nick Brown, Britain's Agriculture Secretary, defends the consumer's right not to consume genetically modified food and is working to incorporate the European directive into British law (The Scotsman, Feb 1, 1999). Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, rules out a moratorium on genetically-modified foods, insisting that there is no scientific justification for one (The Independent, Feb 4, 1999).

<...>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #37)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:42 PM

39. You haven't done the reading.

You haven't even learned how to understand science.

Please stop. You know this.

BTW, if you've actually bothered to read my posts, what do the links say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #36)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:29 PM

38. Part 1 involves Chesson's role in dismissing the current study.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #38)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:43 PM

41. Conspiracy theories are fun, but pointless.

Please learn how to understand science.

Stop pushing pseudo-science. It is not ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #41)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:48 PM

42. Nope, it's scientist vs 'scientist,' as demonstrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #42)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 02:52 PM

43. You keep pretending. The consensus does not show that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #36)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:28 AM

44. The Slate source brought up Mother Jones writer, Tom Philpott, and so does ThinkProgress.org below.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

...None of this seems to bother Tom Philpott, the popular food blogger for Mother Jones, who writes that Seralini's results "shine a harsh light on the ag-biotech industry's mantra that GMOs have indisputably proven safe to eat."

...I single out Philpott not to pick on him, but because he represents the most reasonable, level-headed voice of the anti-GMO brigade (whose most extreme adherents don white hazmat suits and destroy research plots). The same goes for Grist, which calls the French study "important" and says "it's worth paying attention to what Seralini has done.”


http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/14/850321/romney-monsanto/?mobile=nc

Romney And Bain Boosted Agriculture Giant Monsanto In Spite Of Toxic Past
By Aviva Shen on Sep 14, 2012 at 11:37 am


Biotechnology firm Monsanto Company, which currently owns most of the patents for America’s staple crops, is already cozy with American lawmakers. A new Nation report, however, indicates that “a very old friend in a very high place” may usher in the corporation’s most prosperous years yet.

The Nation’s investigative report ( http://www.thenation.com/article/169885/mitt-romney-monsanto-man# ) has uncovered how Mitt Romney personally helped Monsanto shed its string of toxic chemical-related scandals and reinvent itself to dominate American agriculture. Monsanto, an early Bain & Company client, was so impressed with Romney that they started bypassing his superiors to deal with him directly. Romney’s close relationship with then CEO John Hanley prompted his boss to create Bain Capital to keep Romney from leaving and taking their largest consulting client with him.

From 1977 to 1985, Romney helped navigate Monsanto through very rocky waters. The agribusiness was flooded with lawsuits after Congress banned the toxic coolant PCBs, a Monsanto product that has been linked to cancer and neurological disorders. At the same time, Monsanto’s Agent Orange toxin, used to defoliate jungles in the Vietnam War, was linked to the contamination of millions of Vietnamese and American soldiers and had been dubbed “the largest chemical warfare operation” in human history.

Tom Philpott at Mother Jones dug up a 2002 article ( http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/romney-monsanto-bain ) describing Monsanto’s attempts to hide its toxic waste disposal even after managers discovered fish “spurting blood and shedding skin” within 10 seconds of the PCB dump:
Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents—many emblazoned with warnings such as “CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy”—show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew.

Faced with costly litigation, Monsanto relied on Romney to create their new public image — one that did not involve poisoning soldiers or dumping chemicals in rivers:
Dr. Earl Beaver, who was Monsanto’s waste director during the Bain period, says that Bain was certainly “aware” of the “PCB and dioxin scandals” because they created “a negative public perception that was costing the company money.” So Bain recommended focusing “on the businesses that didn’t have those perceptions,” Beaver recalls, starting with “life science products that were biologically based,” including genetically engineered crops, as well as Roundup, the hugely profitable weed-killer. “These were the products that Bain gave their go-ahead to,” Beaver contends, noting that Romney was a key player, “reviewing the data collected by other people and developing alternatives,” talking mostly to “the higher muckety-mucks.”


<...>


BTW, great discussion in the comments of the Slate article.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.single.html

COMMENTS:
Deconstructing Dinner
Keith Kloor's Full Comment titled "No, genetically modified corn won't give you cancer" falls victim to his own allegations.

Kloor lambastes media for reporting on the recent Seralini study and in doing so "legitimizing psuedoscience". Kloor even concludes that the work of Seralini is "scientific distortion". Yet Kloor fails to inquire into who "shredded" the study's credibility and who the "scores of scientists" were who very swiftly sought to discredit the controversial research.

It wouldn't take long to learn that the response to the Seralini study was well orchestrated and heavily funded. The Science Media Centre in particular was one of the key drivers of the anti-Seralini campaign - a 'charitable' organization who seeks to inform the media on important matters of scientific interest. But who funds the SMC? Funders include biotech trade association CropLife, multinational biotech seed giant Syngenta, and the industry's GMO communications arm - the Council for Biotechnology Information. SMC used quotes from ‘experts’ who are heavily invested in pushing GMOs into the food supply. Kloor failed to recognize that the BBC, CBS, Forbes, Discovery News, the Financial Times and The Guardian among others all fell victim to SMC's coordinated campaign to discredit Seralini. Slate is yet another victim having linked directly to the SMC release in the above article. As a journalist, Kloor failed to report on the almost 20 years of similar attacks which have also been well coordinated when any research questioning the safety of GMOs is published.

Kloor further insists that "anti-GMO campaigners have distorted the science on genetically modified foods" yet fails to question whether GMO advocates and industry have done the same?

Where all credit that might go to Kloor gets blown out the window is following his classic error made by GMO advocates when he quotes UC Davis geneticist Pamela Ronald who states, "no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops." As a long-time journalist covering this issue, I can confirm without a modicum of doubt, that had Keith Kloor asked Ronald... "Can you point me to the studies which have been tracking the long-term health effects of GMOs since they were first introduced?" There's only one answer she could have given... "no". Why? Because there have been no such studies.

Jon Steinman
Deconstructing Dinner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #44)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 11:01 AM

45. None of what you post is relevant.

How do you not see that?

Quit spamming nonsense!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #45)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 12:49 PM

46. Industry scientists. independent scientists? No difference?

That's relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #46)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:06 PM

47. Red herrings are not relevant.

Try again.

Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:32 PM

49. The amount of negative studies not published is

enormous. We really cannot know without being able to access all of the information. This applies to much more than just the studies of drugs. It's not about health or the well being of anyone. It's all about greed.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:15 PM

50. LeMonde - GM cancer study academic hits back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #50)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 09:53 AM

51. there are some brave people left in the world n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celebration (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:33 PM

52. Bravely pushing BS fictions to advance their own ridiculous careers!

That's so awesome!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #52)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:25 AM

53. Right on schedule, bringing in the corporate view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sense (Reply #53)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:36 PM

54. You seem to think science based view equates to "corporate view."

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #54)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:16 PM

58. Perhaps it is just a freak coincidence that your opinion is ALWAYS

the same as the one that supports corporate America.


Oh, and rather than the stock rude remark in response, how about a link to prove me wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #58)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:08 PM

59. Hogwash.

My opinion supports science.

You support blind personal ad hominem as a way to ignore science.

That is boring and deceitful.

PS: How does this support your baseless claim?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11425262

Oh, that's right it shows your claim to be the nonsense it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:53 PM

61. I am impressed!

And stand corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #61)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:14 PM

64. Yeah, uh huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread