New study on safety of Roundup "reflects rat liver and kidney damage" at low doses

[nationalize the fed]

Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure



Received: 21 April 2015
Accepted: 11 August 2015
Published: 25 August 2015

Abstract
Background

Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are the major pesticides used worldwide. Converging evidence suggests that GBH, such as Roundup, pose a particular health risk to liver and kidneys although low environmentally relevant doses have not been examined. To address this issue, a 2-year study in rats administering 0.1 ppb Roundup (50 ng/L glyphosate equivalent) via drinking water (giving a daily intake of 4 ng/kg bw/day of glyphosate) was conducted. A marked increased incidence of anatomorphological and blood/urine biochemical changes was indicative of liver and kidney structure and functional pathology. In order to confirm these findings we have conducted a transcriptome microarray analysis of the liver and kidneys from these same animals.

Results

The expression of 4224 and 4447 transcript clusters (a group of probes corresponding to a known or putative gene) were found to be altered respectively in liver and kidney (p?<?0.01, q?<?0.08). Changes in gene expression varied from ?3.5 to 3.7 fold in liver and from ?4.3 to 5.3 in kidneys. Among the 1319 transcript clusters whose expression was altered in both tissues, ontological enrichment in 3 functional categories among 868 genes were found. First, genes involved in mRNA splicing and small nucleolar RNA were mostly upregulated, suggesting disruption of normal spliceosome activity. Electron microscopic analysis of hepatocytes confirmed nucleolar structural disruption.

Second, genes controlling chromatin structure (especially histone-lysine N-methyltransferases) were mostly upregulated. Third, genes related to respiratory chain complex I and the tricarboxylic acid cycle were mostly downregulated. Pathway analysis suggests a modulation of the mTOR and phosphatidylinositol signalling pathways. Gene disturbances associated with the chronic administration of ultra-low dose Roundup reflect a liver and kidney lipotoxic condition and increased cellular growth that may be linked with regeneration in response to toxic effects causing damage to tissues. Observed alterations in gene expression were consistent with fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondrial membrane dysfunction and ischemia, which correlate with and thus confirm observations of pathology made at an anatomical, histological and biochemical level.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that chronic exposure to a GBH in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system at an ultra-low, environmental dose can result in liver and kidney damage with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations.

Full article: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/70

Environmental Health is a peer-reviewed medical journal established in 2002 and published by BioMed Central. It covers research in all areas of environmental and occupational medicine. The editors-in-chief are Philippe Grandjean (University of Southern Denmark) and David Ozonoff (Boston University School of Public Health). According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2012 impact factor of 2.714
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Health_(journal)

Label GMO Food like 64 countries already do.

[uppityperson]

1. I am for labeling crops that are gmo so can avoid those who aren't and who use roundup

[Lee-Lee]

2. Wouldn't roundup labeling be more direct?

GMO may mean it was a Roundup ready crop or many other things.

And Roudnup can be use around non-GMO crops.

If you want to avoid GBH, you want GBH labeling, not GMO.

[pnwmom]

11. Labeling a product GMO is specific enough. Most people won't care

and those who do can then get more information.

But if products aren't labeled at all then long term epidemiological studies can't be carried out.

[uppityperson]

25. Actually, I'd rather have them labeled what pesticides were used when so I could

judge if enough time had passed for me to be comfortable with eating the food.

[pnwmom]

58. Time wouldn't make much difference for the Roundup

that gets absorbed by the plant. And washing off the outside wouldn't help with that, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

According to the National Pesticide Information Center fact sheet, glyphosate is not included in compounds tested for by the Food and Drug Administration's Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program, nor in the United States Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program. However, a field test showed that lettuce, carrots, and barley contained glyphosate residues up to one year after the soil was treated with 3.71 lb of glyphosate per acre (4.15 kg per hectare)

[uppityperson]

20. I agree, that would be better, to label who uses GBH, thank you.

[HuckleB]

46. GBH?

Great band, but I think they're already labeled. Well, they might have been dropped, but...

[nationalize the fed]

3. One is either for more information

or less.

Notice the language that the Pro GMO posters use- they belittle, condescend and call people "stupid" and "ignorant" and say demanding GMO labels is like being an "antivaxxer". They want people to eat whatever the corporations put on the plate. Less info is better, according to them.

The same kind of divide that shows up in other places.

[uppityperson]

5. Are you saying I am belittling or insulting? What? Please clarify. Thank you.

[pnwmom]

12. Right. They're always trying to link GMO's and vaccines. They might as well

link GMO's and the hydrogen bomb. All they have in common is that they were developed by scientists and engineers -- the same thing GMO's and most vaccines have in common.

[progressoid]

50. Not quite.

The link between anti-GMO and anti-vaccine is the the way both groups prefer unfounded fear over science and facts.


On a semi-related note. A lot of vaccines are genetically engineered. They seem to work out pretty well too.

[pnwmom]

52. Not a lot of vaccines are GEO's, but some are. My post acknowledged that.

And I'm not against GMO's or GME's in general.

I just think they should be labeled.

[progressoid]

56. If you're not against them, why label them?

[progressoid]

9. Roundup is also used on non-gmo crops.

[bvar22]

21. The Suburbs are also saturated with it, along with other toxins.

I wouldn't let my dog play on a "manicured" suburban lawn....much less my kids.
I wouldn't even walk on it myself.


Remember: Monsanto did "scientific studies" that "proved" Agent Orange was safe!!!
It took years for the cancers to start showing up, and it is still happening.

Will YOU trust those people?
I won't.

We'll keep growing our own food,
and GMOs, and non-naturally occurring herbicides, pesticides, and "fertilizers" are forever banned from our little hilltop in Arkansas.

[Drahthaardogs]

48. The issue with "Agent Orange" was incomplete combustion in some process batches

that led to the formation of 2,3,7-8 TCDD Dioxin. The chemical components of agent orange 2,4,-5 T and 2,4-D were not really the cancer causing agents. Not all batches of Agent Orange had dioxin contamination.

[malokvale77]

85. "Remember: Monsanto did "scientific studies" that "proved" Agent Orange was safe!!!"

That shit killed my brother.

I have no love for anything Monsanto. I should have the right to avoid anything, however remotely tied to them.

[HuckleB]

102. No, Monsanto did no such thing.

The government developed Agent Orange, and contracted, somewhat forcefully, with more than one company to make the stuff. One of those was Monsanto, but, while I acknowledge your valid grief, it's time to be honest about the topic.

[malokvale77]

119. So contract with the government...

and take no responsibility for the damage your product causes.

You need to take that shit else where HuckleB. It's time you become honest on the topic.

[uppityperson]

51. That was my point, sorry for being unclear

[alarimer]

18. Non-GMO (non Roundup-ready, that is) use MORE Roundup.

This is the problem with anti-GMO arguments. You have no idea what you are talking about. Like climate change deniers, however, no amount of facts will ever change your minds.

Which is why this is a case study in how to think critically. Not that you will read this article (you have made up your minds and no amount of contrary information will change it).

Still here it is:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/08/critical_thinking_lessons_for_the_anti_gmo_movement_generalizations_evidence.html

[uppityperson]

19. I am highly amused at your insults. Reread what I wrote and try again.

Think critically and I will wait for the apology. I edited in the bold for more clarity.

"I am for labeling crops that are gmo so can avoid those who aren't and who use roundup"

[Rex]

75. You got lambasted for making a simple point.

These same people say they are pro-science, but anti-transparency. Sadly they don't see the irony in this and never will.

[uppityperson]

89. My point was avoiding non gmo crops and those who use roundup and other pest/herb icides close

to harvesting. I'd like labeling for when those were used, gmo labeling is meh. I agree its ironic that people don't want labeling for pesticide and herbicide use.

[Thinkingabout]

4. I think I will continue to grow and provide my own produce, I know what happens then.

[uppityperson]

6. Me too. I like having my own garden. It makes it difficult to buy veggies in

the store, thinking "that much? I can grow that". You know what I mean?

[Thinkingabout]

7. Hey, then you don't have to whine either.

[KT2000]

8. the damage from glyphosate

will never be recognized even though the evidence has been piling up. The cost benefit analysis is based on the cost to the corporation and the benefit to it - not the public health. The consideration of health effects is not in the equation because corporations are never held liable for the damage they cause to individuals.

For example, there have been clusters of cancers (and kidney failures as in the farm workers in S. America) that have never been attributed to any source. No one can prove that a particular substance has caused a particular illness because people are exposed to so many toxic chemicals. Groups of workers have become ill from occupational exposures but are usually diagnosed as having mental problems in the absence of death or burns. In other words - causation is never established and never will because of barriers that are built into the regulatory and medical establishments by design.

Corporations can make money destroying the public health because the public health does not exist in the data - only the benefits in dollars to the corp. and the loss of those dollars if restrictions were enacted.

[longship]

10. Seralini again, people.

A guy who has an ideological opposition to genetic modification and has previously done extremely flawed research.

In other words, Seralini has done fraudulent and rejected research in the past so people should pay close attention to the peer review on this paper.

This paper likely means nothing.

[pnwmom]

14. And he's hated by the Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothers.

A strong point in his favor.

[longship]

16. Well, a point in his favor would be something he has not yet shown.

Good science that stands up to peer review. That something sadly lacking in what he has attempted to publish up to now.

So having Seralini's name on a paper is pretty much the kiss of death for it.

That would be true no matter what the Heritage Foundation thinks of him.

Bad science is bad science.

[pnwmom]

17. This paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. That means it stood up to peer review. nt

[longship]

22. Nope, that isn't how it works.

There is something called pre-publication peer review, but the real peer review comes after publication. In fact, that's the purpose of publication, to elicit peers to review ones work.

And not every journal is as judicious as the big ones on reviewing papers. In fact, Seralini himself has sometimes gone to journals that... ahem! ...are a bit dodgy.

Just having Seralini's name on the paper makes the science behind it suspicious.

So, I will reserve my judgement until the peer review has happened. And so should everybody else, especially because of Seralini being one of the names on the paper.

[pnwmom]

30. Duh. But the initial peer reviewers approved its publication.

And this publication isn't "dodgy."

Everyone should routinely withhold judgment on all scientific papers till there is confirmation. At least this paper WAS published.

There is no way of knowing how much research on GMOs was withheld by Monsanto when it was requiring all its "independent" researchers to sign papers agreeing not to publish any results without its approval; a practice that assured that only studies with favorable results would ever see the light of day.

[longship]

31. Well, it is a dodgy journal.

It's apparently one of those pay to publish journals. Apparently the only review is if one has paid.

So the paper fails that way, too.

Plus, it's fucking Seralini, a known fraudulent scientist.

[bvar22]

64. ....and becausde you think it is "dodgy" means that products containing GMOs....

should NOT be labeled?
What is your rational for that?

Do we have a right to know what large corporations are putting in our food?

I agree with this guy:

Whatever happened to him?
He would have made a good President.

[longship]

65. The science says that labeling is unnecessary.

Of course, any company is free to label their products as GMO Free if they want. But there is no argument that should compel such labeling since the science is pretty damned clear that it is unneccesary.

And the only arguments to the contrary always seem to cite the same bullshit, shoddy science.

If people want to make a case for mandatory labeling they are going to have to do some homework first. In the meantime, there is nothing stopping anybody for labeling their products to be GMO Free, regardless that the term is just as meaningless as any other marketing term. All food is genetically modified. All of it.

[bvar22]

67. In case you misssed it in the above post, I'll repeat.

[font size=4]"...because Americans have a RIGHT to know what is in our food."[/font]
---Obama

[longship]

68. Well, all food is genetically modified.

All of it! Humans have been doing it for thousands of years.

So what value is labeling?

One might as well admit the truth of what the science actually says and find something more important to advocate for.

Mandatory labeling accomplishes nothing since it is all genetically modified. Any demarcation line is not well defined. Plus, the is zero evidence that what folks are screeching about GMO food is in any way unhealthy. That is what the science says too. And citing fraudulent studies does nothing to advance the anti-GMO labeling goals.

[bvar22]

70. That is a BS myth created by Monsanto.

Natural Selection, the way we have done it for thousands of years, has built in protections.
Nature takes little baby steps, and some "experiments" don't survive...and THAT is a good thing.

An elephant will never combine genes with a Chihuahua.
I can leave a Salmon and a tomato in my barn overnight, and there will be NO sharing of genes.

Trying to insist that Gene Splicing is "just like nature" is pure BS designed to sell product and fool the Rubes.
Which one are you?

[yawnmaster]

72. Humans have NOT used Natural Selection to improve crops and livestock throughout history...

they have used Artificial Selection, also known as Selective Breeding.
We select for phenotypes we want preserved and this can be due to a mutation - a NEW gene!
It is not slow and doesn't take thousands of years. It is directed by humans.
"Experiments" that might not survive in natural selection are allowed to survive with artificial selection.

Humans have been doing it from time immemorial.

[longship]

73. Nope! Nice try.

I especially like the standard Monsanto ploy, always a good sign of an ideological objection. Why argue science when one can weave a compelling conspiracy theory.

You do realize that your dry body mass is more bacterial than human, don't you?

You also are part fish (from what your ancestral tetrapod relatives sprung).

Where similar arguments to what you make fail is that there is no clear line of demarcation. All life on Earth is related and shares a common DNA inheritance. That means all life on Earth has DNA from every single other life form on Earth.

So, I would ask anybody who is going to play the card that you are apparently playing. Where does one draw the line of demarcation? That's right. There really isn't one.

If people want to label food with regards to genetic modification they are free to do so. No laws necessary. And when there is a GMO Free aisle at my local grocers, I will know how to avoid the worthless higher prices, just like I do for food labeled "natural" or "organic". (The latter actually means something, but the expense is prohibitive; the former is just rubbish marketing which is also the inevitability of GMO labeling.)

[bvar22]

76. There is a VERY clear line.

Gene Splicing is dependent on a lab and technicians.
Natural Selection, or even Selective Breeding do NOT.
(NOW can you hear me?)

That was a nice diversion about everybody sharing the same genes from common ancestors,
but it was meant to distract and confuse.
It has no relevance in this application.

Gene Splicing is FAR different from natural/selective breeding.

[longship]

78. Again, nope!

Gene splicing is in no way different than what agriculture has been doing for thousands of years, mainly introducing genes from one species into another. Again, the line of demarcation is fuzzy because all lifeforms on Earth contain bacterial DNA, worm DNA, fish DNA, etc.

The difference is that gene splicing in the lab has far better specificity, meaning that the outcome is not a mere roll of the dice.

And the bottom line is that lab genetic modification has been going on for years, as has been the study of its safety. There is no reputable science that shows any derogatory health effects. None whatsoever.

Regardless, although I am not for mandatory labeling -- voluntary of course is fine -- I support studies on the safety of genetic modification, as long as it is good science and not the rubbish cited by anti-GMO ideologues. The science informs my opinion, not any preconceived notion of genetic modification. So far science supports my position.

Thanks for your replies.

My best to you.

[bvar22]

79. You keep eating what Monsanto and Agri Business puts on your plate,

we'll keep growing our own GMO & Toxin Free food.
The Lagniappe for us is that our Homegrown tastes so much better.

[longship]

88. That is a different matter altogether.

The behavior of corporations can and should be regulated. And genetic modification should be studied, as a separate issue.

And if companies want to label their products GMO Free (whatever the fuck that means after thousands of years of agriculture) they are free to do so. But that will be no more meaningful than the "natural" label because every bite you eat is genetically modified no matter who grew it.

There is no such thing as non-GMO food.

[NuclearDem]

77. "Nature takes little baby steps, and some "experiments" don't survive...and THAT is a good thing."

Thanks for playing Borderline Eugenics and Social Darwinism!

So tell me, bvar, if nature produces, say, diabetes, color blindness, or some other delibilitating inheritable condition, should we simply allow nature's "safeguards"--do remember that is the inability of the organism to pass on its genetic material due to death--to simply kill those people?

Or is your appeal to nature fallacy just ridiculous?

[bvar22]

81. Nowhere have I advocated for keeping sick people sick,

and I resent your post.
I am not a Luddite,and have a strong background in Science.

Of course, we keep doing research to cure diseases.

What I oppose are two things:

*1 Monsanto and supporters insisting that gene splicing is as "natural" as selective breeding.
It is NOT.

*2 NONE of the GMO supporters have ever produced any long term, peer reviewed research, published
in a legitimate Scientific Journal claiming that GMOs are harmless.

THAT is because our Politicians gave the Thumbs Up to Monsanto.
The scientists did not.

If you can produce long term, peer reviewed research, published in a legitimate Scientific Journal
certifying that GMO is harmless, we'll talk more.

[NuclearDem]

82. What exactly is amazingly better about "natural" processes than "unnatural" ones?

That's called an appeal to nature fallacy.

and have a strong background in Science.

We'll just keep in that mind for a while here...

*1 Monsanto and supporters insisting that gene splicing is as "natural" as selective breeding.
It is NOT.

First, I'm certain you know, with your strong background in science, that Monsanto is not the only entity that experiments with recombinant DNA, so why you insist on "Monsanto this" and "Monsanto that", even though Monsanto itself is irrelevant to a discussion about recombinant DNA, I have no idea.

Second, making recombinant DNA is "unnatural" in the same way that constructing a planned building is "unnatural." The laws of physics determine how materials will stand and function with each other, but if left to a simple natural process, something resembling a "house" wouldn't just come together on its own. Direct human manipulation--framing, supports, adhesives--brings materials that otherwise would not likely be together and makes something functional out of it. And the manipulation--architecture, construction, and design--depends on the natural laws of physics to function.

Same with recombinant DNA. The DNA can be manipulated, and the organism can function with the new genes. It's the same process, same principle, just done with more direct human manipulation than previously possible.

*2 NONE of the GMO supporters have ever produced any long term, peer reviewed research, published
in a legitimate Scientific Journal claiming that GMOs are harmless.

I would imagine your strong background in science would inform you that studies do not claim things are "harmless", much less in one single study. First of all, "harmless" is an absolutely subjective, not to mention impossibly high burden of safety; apple cider gives people diarrhea, is it safe to drink? What about dairy and people with lactose intolerance?

What you're demanding is completely out of the bounds of feasible: a single study demonstrating the effects of all genetically modified foods and their byproducts on every diet and every physical condition, and to the level that it causes little to no harm for all of them. Absolutely ridiculous, and not something someone with a strong background in science would even suggest.

The thousands and thousands of studies that have been published on the different effects of different genetically modified organisms on different people have generally shown that GM foods are no more dangerous than their organic equivalents.

[bvar22]

84. You FAILED to respond to my challenge.

Here. I'll help you out of your struggling,
and repeat the challenge:

[font size=3]Produce ANY long term, peer reviewed research published in a legitimate Scientific Journal verifying that consuming GMO food causes NO damage to Human Beings, and I will listen to you.

[/font]
(I made it REAL BIG so you wouldn't miss it this time.)

As long as you are just making stuff up and throwing BS up in the air,
I have no use for you.

[NuclearDem]

87. Because your challenge is completely ridiculous, sets an unrealistically high burden of safety

and is not something anyone with even a basic understanding of the scientific method would propose, especially not someone with a "scientific background" such as yours.

Done here.

[bvar22]

91. "Peer reviewed, long term studies published in legitimate Journals is rediculous."

So sayeth NuclearDem in the above post.

[NuclearDem]

92. And for the cherry on top, you're completely dishonest.

That, or you completely ignored everything I read in favor of a ridiculous attempt at a gotcha, after your weak argument fell to bits.

[bvar22]

94. "Peer reviewed, long term studies published in legitimate Journals is rediculous."

or, at least, that is what NuclearDem insists in the above post.
.
.
.
And I thought the Anti-Science crowd had left DU.

[NuclearDem]

95. Repeat a lie all you want, bvar. That won't make it true.

Here is what you said:

If you can produce long term, peer reviewed research, published in a legitimate Scientific Journal
certifying that GMO is harmless, we'll talk more.

Bolded is the part I objected to on the grounds that it's a ridiculous (spelled with two I's, by the way) standard to hold anything to, much less expect one study to slap on a very broad field of agriculture, environmental science, biology and toxicology.

Of course, you would have known that if you had actually read my post. If you can't be bothered to read a couple of paragraphs, why on earth would someone waste time sharing any degree of research paper with you?

[bvar22]

96. You still haven't produced ANY independently reviewed studies

certifying that GMO foods are safe.

I call that a fail.

[NuclearDem]

97. "I call that a fail."

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

[bvar22]

115. No. it is just a plain old FAIL.

[Major Nikon]

112. Strawman much?

[malokvale77]

86. That man would have made a good president.

Sigh.

[progressoid]

26. "BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer reviews"

Environmental Health part of this http://retractionwatch.com/2015/03/26/biomed-central-retracting-43-papers-for-fake-peer-review/

Environmental Health is also a pay to publish racket.

Environmental Health therefore levies an article-processing charge of £1290/$2020/€1645 for each article accepted for publication.

[longship]

28. Now who could have predicted this?

Yup! Seralini's at it again.

If the anti-GMO crowd can't do better than Seralini, then they are in real trouble. (I mean more than the fact that all the science says genetic modification is safe.)

Just attests to the inescapable conclusion that anti-GMO is based on ideology and trumped up pseudo-science, not actual science.

[pnwmom]

42. If companies like Dupont and Monsanto and the other GMO producers had a better

safety record, then people wouldn't be so suspicious of the GMO's they're pushing so hard now.

As it is, they have a safety record far worse than Seralini's. He's not responsible for any deaths or birth defects due to harmful products.

[longship]

45. Well, I don't like Monsanto anymore than I like Seralini.

They are both evil scumbags.

But I support genetic modification because all the science says it is safe. And any that appears to not support it are lousy studies like those published by Seralini, not worth the digital ink they are written with.

[pnwmom]

47. How can you say that "all the science says it is safe" when Monsanto was allowed

for years to suppress the results of any GMO research that it wanted to cover up?

It could and did require "independent" researchers who wanted to study GMO seeds to sign agreements not to publish results without the company's prior approval.

So we will never know what "all the science" has shown. Just what the producers want us to know.

[longship]

49. Because every study cited by anti-GMO folks have big problems.

Like being authored by people like Seralini, or have clear ideological conflicts. Regardless, like Seralini, the science is shabby, which the peer reviewers clearly and unambiguously state.

The reason why I can state that all the science supports the safety of genetic modification is precisely because the so-called science cited by the anti-GMO crowd is so fucking pathetic. And here we go, Seralini yet again. QED!

If one wants to cite science without being embarrassed one had better make to effort to find out if the science stands up. The existence of a published paper does not do that, which is your first mistake. Plus, a single paper does not establish new finding. One has to look at the entire literature to do that, something ideological anti-science folks never do. They tend to cherry pick the bad science that support their predetermined conclusions and never let go of those studies even if they have been discredited.

These characteristics are common only with pseudoscience, which one can fairly claim is the state of anti-GMO.

[pnwmom]

53. The studies sponsored by the producers all have clear conflicts of interest,

including all the studies by "independent" researchers who signed contracts not to publish results without permission.

[longship]

54. Conflicts of interest are part of the peer review.

It is people who have ideological interests who do not reveal those conflicts where the research goes wrong. It is unethical to reveal such conflicts.

Note: Seralini's conflicts

If one cites a study by this boob, they are not doing their argument any good. He has the worst kind of conflict of interest, an ideological one, where science does not matter. It is very much like "creation science" or any other pseudo-science. Worthless! Thankfully, thanks to peer review his outright fraudulent science is now exposed.

Nevertheless, the anti-GMO ideologues keep trotting out Seralini rubbish as their science. Why should anybody take such arguments seriously?

Here's more reaction on Seralini:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/scientists-react-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/

[pnwmom]

55. Studies that GMO producers prevented from being published are being reviewed by no one. nt

[longship]

57. Rubbish!

They cannot be published in reputable journals without review.

Now you are just making shit up. You are going to do a lot better. With the rest of your ignorant posts, I am done here.

I suggest that you look into the research.

[pnwmom]

59. You missed my point completely. And this is a matter of FACT.

The producers were supplying seeds to researchers, but only on condition that they signed contracts agreeing not to publish any results without the prior approval of the producers.

So why should we trust that the studies that WERE published were representative of all the studies that were done? How do we know that researchers weren't prevented from publishing unfavorable results -- since the contracts allowed the publishers to stop publication?

This article was written in 2009. Due to heavy criticism, the industry has since then opened the pathway to publication somewhat wider. But it was tightly shut during the years before many GMO's were approved.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”


Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech­nol­ogy.”

SNIP

[longship]

62. And maybe you missed my point.

When the anti-GMO crowd cite only rubbish science, like that from Seralini, they should be justifiably ridiculed as a bunch of ignorant ideologues who really do not have anything informed to say on the topic of genetic modification. In other words, their arguments are less than useless. Nobody should take anything they say seriously.

Their lame arguments get tiring. Plus, what the science says is that they are wrong. Alas! That is common with ideological pseudoscience.

Have a nice day.

[Major Nikon]

103. And he's also loved by nutbag Republicans Mercola and Mike Adams

Which negates your "strong point".

[pnwmom]

108. I don't know much about Mercola, and nothing about his politics, so I googled him.

It turns out he decries the "corporate takeover"of the US, and is against the TPP, as well as the Rethug-sponsored anti-labeling bill. So he sure doesn't sound like a Republican.

I don't know who Mike Adams is. It's too common a name to look for in google.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/07/07/corporate-takeover-free-trade-deals.aspx

Dissenting Lawmakers Punished as Corporate Takeover of United States Advances


As explained by Ben Beachy and Ben Lilliston in recent interviews, the TPP, which involves the United States and 11 other countries around the Pacific Rim, is a vast expansion of terms already found in the notoriously unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

If ratified, the TPP will have tremendous ramifications for our health, economy, and environmental protections—not to mention the loss of individual, state, and national rights, as it sets up binding rules that supersede US law.

As noted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation3 (the primary concern of which is the TPP's impact on digital regulations), we have but one narrow window of opportunity left.

The Fast Track legislation does force the White House to release the final trade agreement text 60 days before Congress votes on it, giving us a two-month long window to dissect it and convince our lawmakers not to ratify it.

In the meantime, we need to continue hammering our representatives, driving home the message that we will not accept a yes vote on TPP. Nor will we accept a yes vote on the Pompeo bill, which would also eliminate state rights to label and regulate GMOs.

[Major Nikon]

109. Sure, all good Democrats belong to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Members

Anti-abortion, anti-vaccination, anti-birth control, anti-universal health care and anti-ACA. All tightly held left wing values, eh?

[SidDithers]

23. Seralini?...

Last edited Tue Sep 1, 2015, 09:40 AM - Edit history (1)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gilles-Eric_S%C3%A9ralini

Sid

[AwareOne]

13. So it might be dangerous after 2 years of chronic exposure

administered directly to the poor rats through their drinking water. The article acknowledges this does is "far greater than general human population exposure." I'm sure many common things we use daily might be dangerous if you chronically expose yourself to it through your drinking water for 2 years. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me. I for one am not afraid of science and will continue to use Round-up which has been proven safe WHEN USED ACCORDING TO THE LABEL, and not drank every day for two years.

[pnwmom]

15. Farmers are using Roundup in much greater doses than before

because of the resistant weeds that are springing up. So the old safety data doesn't apply.

And without labeling, long term population-based epidemiological studies cannot be carried out.

[AwareOne]

24. All herbicides undergo extensive testing

before they are approved by the EPA. They also have to be retested and re-certified every so often so the labels are always current. I don't understand your "without labeling" comment.

[GreatGazoo]

27. EPA hasn't tested Roundup since 1993, had to be sued to do so...

The Environmental Protection Agency will begin a study on four popular agricultural herbicides, including glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. As Courthouse News Service reports, the study is a result of a settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, which filed a lawsuit against the EPA eight years ago, demanding action. The EPA has agreed to finish the analysis of the effects of glyphosate, atrazine, propazine, and simazine on endangered species by 2020.

Glyphosate is the most popular of the four, and its critics believe Roundup is responsible for killing insects and plants, important factors in the food cycle, and may cause cancer in humans, as well. Roundup is used both in agriculture and on lawns. The EPA hasn’t studied glyphosate since 1993. According to National Geographic, its usage nationwide has skyrocketed from fewer than 11 million pounds in 1987 to nearly 300 million pounds in 2012. The exponential increase can be credited to the popularity of genetically engineered corn and soybean seeds. Atrazine, propazine, and simazine are primarily agricultural chemicals. Atrazine has been linked to chemical castration in frogs.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/lawsuit-forces-epa-to-study-effects-of-roundup-and-other-agricultural-chemicals

[L0oniX]

40. That has not stopped studies in other countries.

[pnwmom]

33. As the recent editorial in the American Journal of Medicine explained,

you can't do long-term post-market epidemiological research without being able to track a product's use in the population, and you can't do that without labeling.

Is that clear enough for you?

[L0oniX]

39. Trust ...it's a wonderful thing.

[bvar22]

83. Your much beloved EPA has been captured by Monsanto.

Obama appointed one [iMicheal Taylor to run the EPA.
Micheal Taylor is a former executive, lawyer, and Lobbyist FOR Monsanto.
(Look it up)
Do you believe anything anti-Monsanto is going to make it past Michael Taylor?


One of President Obama's first cabinet appointments was Tom Vilsack, former Gov of Iowa, and a strong advocate for Monsanto, Factory Pig Farming with Million Gallon waste ponds, and Mono-cropping.
Obama made this guy the HEAD of the USDA.


Anyone who believes anything about GMO or Monsanto that comes from these two agencies
needs to come over to MY house and play a little game:


I promise you will win a bunch of money....and GMOs are perfectly safe for YOU to eat.
We will stick with our toxin free, non-GMO homegrown produce.

[Major Nikon]

105. Michael Taylor has never worked for the EPA

Perhaps you didn't bother to "look it up"? He's never been the head of any agency, but I guess the creatively speculative position is that he simultaneously controls the FDA, USDA, and EPA from a subordinate position at the FDA.

[bvar22]

110. My alphabet soup must have been upside down this AM.

Of course, I meant the FDA.
and this former Monsanto executive, lawyer and Monsanto lobbyist was appointed the Deputy Commissioner of Food.


Do you see a potential conflict of interest?

[Major Nikon]

111. If you meant FDA, why did you respond to a comment about the EPA?

Regardless of what Michael Taylor is or isn't, he doesn't work for the EPA and never has.

[bvar22]

114. That was my bad,

but it is neither intentional, nor malicious, nor uncommon.

Despite our little diversion over the Alphabet Sour, former executive, lawyer, and rgisered Lobbyist for Monsanto
Michael Taylor WAS, in fact, appointed as the Food Czar at the FDA,
a very powerful position.


Now, back to MY question that you dodged:
Do you see any potential for Conflict of Interest?

(BTW: Michael Taylor isn't the only former Monsanto executive/lawyer at the FDA.
It is infested with them, and the revolving door just keeps spinning faster and faster.)

[Major Nikon]

116. Not all questions deserve answers

Some are just too stupid to warrant the effort. But since you've chosen the path of condescension, I'll answer it just to show how stupid it is.

I see potential for conflict of interest in all politicians and bureaucrats.

Now it's your turn. What exactly has Michael Taylor done to betray his position? Surely you have something better than innuendo and creative speculation, yes?

[bvar22]

117. I neeed nothing more than the appearance of impropriety,

and this one stinks from a mile away.
If you can NOT admit that you see that,
then there are only two alternatives.

[Major Nikon]

118. Actually you don't even need that for making baseless accusations

When it comes to actual impropriety the best you can do is dodge my question.

[nationalize the fed]

66. Here's an explanation of animal doses

from a poster on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/user/Asshole_PhD

"Asshole_PhD" writes:

From the study:

Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are the major pesticides used worldwide. Converging evidence suggests that GBH, such as Roundup, pose a particular health risk to liver and kidneys although low environmentally relevant doses have not been examined. To address this issue, a 2-year study in rats administering 0.1 ppb Roundup (50 ng/L glyphosate equivalent) via drinking water (giving a daily intake of 4 ng/kg bw/day of glyphosate) was conducted. A marked increased incidence of anatomorphological and blood/urine biochemical changes was indicative of liver and kidney structure and functional pathology.

Converting that to humans:

BSA conversion is most accurate

BSA conversion table here from FDA. (PDF)

To convert rat dose to human equivalent dose, multiply by 6, then divide by 37.

4 x 6 = 24, divided by 37 = .65 ng/kg per day. Assume 60 kg human, that gives you 38 ng per day for adverse effects.

The EPA set the MCLG for glyphosate at 0.7 mg/L or 700 ppb, so this really should be lowered substantially. For reference, 1 nanogram = 0.000001 milligram. Humans generally drink a liter or more of water per day, so that would give you around an entire milligram or so per day, not counting food residues.

And he adds:

GBH = Glyphosate-based herbicide. (Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to sound like a dick. I thought you were asking what GBH was)

I have no idea how long it takes to break down. I'll have a look.

Edit: PDF page 4 here says "If glyphosate reached surface water, it would not be broken down readily by water or sunlight." I'll see if I can find where the EPA got this information. They also state that glyphosate will be broken down by microbes in soil, but that says nothing about adjuvants.

Use the above formula when discussing rat/mouse studies elsewhere online. I've noticed that a lot of people bank on the assumption that regular people don't know how to convert animal dose to human equivalent, and claim things like "yea, but rats and mice are totally different and the dose will be 1000 times higher."

You can typically also find literature which describes whether humans are more or less tolerant of specific metals/chemicals compared to animals used in any study. If the dose is equivalent to regular human exposure and shows harm, and humans are less tolerant, you can assume that dose is harmful. The BSA conversion is a great way to get an accurate estimate.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3j3x5b/our_results_suggest_that_chronic_exposure_to_a/

[villager]

29. But, but... it's not real "science" if it reflects badly on Monsanto or other corporate toxins!

It's our job as dutiful forward-thinking engineers of the future to accept corporate safety pronouncementa without question..

[Lorien]

34. Absolutely! Doing otherwise endangers

uh, endangers something! Besides, anyone who disagrees is an anti-vaxxer who believes in HAARP mind control (or some such insanity). smh

[villager]

44. That's right! You gun-grabber!

Oh wait -- those are the NRA epithets, rather than the Monsanto ones... Easy to get one's "true believers" a little mixed-up...

[Lorien]

32. Oh dear, here comes the foaming at the mouth pro-GMO crowd!

They seem to think that it's perfectly fine as a salad dressing. But please, whatever you do, don't suggest labeling their beloved antibiotic filled Roundup drenched crops!! That's exactly the same as wanting to ban vaccines, don't you know.

[uppityperson]

41. Is this an example of what this other post was talking about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7127889

I am very curious also what crops are antibiotic filled?

[Major Nikon]

104. This is an even better one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7123085

Kinda makes the "foaming at the mouth" accusation look a lot like Freudian projection.

[Dont call me Shirley]

35. If it's so safe naysayers, eat a diet of nothing but gmo corn and wheat and tell me about your cance

in a year.

[uppityperson]

43. I'd like to see how healthy someone is who ate nothing but non-gmo corn and wheat

It seems lacking in vitamins and other nutrients.

[Dont call me Shirley]

69. Tumorville

[yawnmaster]

74. If you throw in some GMO beef, some GMO pork, oh and GMO potato - I'm in!...

Some GMO peas and GMO beans would be good, too.

I couldn't eat nothing but corn and wheat for a year, whether it's GMO or not!

I want a good selection of GMO foods!

edited to add: and GMO tomatoes, too!

[Dont call me Shirley]

90. And gmo zucchini, yellow squash and salmon. Yummy yummy. Look at how fast these tumors are

growing, Fred.They're almost big enough to harvest, Ethel.

[yawnmaster]

98. Nope, don't generally like zucchini and yellow squash, unless they are in minestrone soup...

if so... I'll gladly eat GMO.
Actually, I'd eat the zucchini if they had a bit of bacon flavor added.

[Major Nikon]

106. Almost makes you wonder where they are hiding all the bodies

[HuckleB]

36. Another attempt to justify Seralini.

This is just plain bad. DUers can do better than this.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/604129903059597/?hc_location=ufi

[SidDithers]

63. Apparently, they can't...nt

Sid

[L0oniX]

38. Monsanto's Herbicide Linked to Fatal Kidney Disease Epidemic: Could It Topple the Company?

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24876-monsantos-herbicide-linked-to-fatal-kidney-disease-epidemic-will-ckdu-topple-monsanto

For years, scientists have been trying to unravel the mystery of a chronic kidney disease epidemic that has hit Central America, India and Sri Lanka. The disease occurs in poor peasant farmers who do hard physical work in hot climes. In each instance, the farmers have been exposed to herbicides and to heavy metals. The disease is known as CKDu, for Chronic Kidney Disease of unknown etiology. The "u" differentiates this illness from other chronic kidney diseases where the cause is known. Very few Western medical practitioners are even aware of CKDu, despite the terrible toll it has taken on poor farmers from El Salvador to South Asia.

Dr. Catharina Wesseling, the regional director for the Program on Work and Health (SALTRA) in Central America, which pioneered the initial studies of the region's unsolved outbreak, put it this way, "Nephrologists and public health professionals from wealthy countries are mostly either unfamiliar with the problem or skeptical whether it even exists."

of course ...more at link

[Major Nikon]

99. That's some funny shit right there

In an investigation worthy of the great Sherlock Holmes, a scientific sleuth from Sri Lanka, Dr. Channa Jayasumana, and his two colleagues, Dr. Sarath Gunatilake and Dr. Priyantha Senanayake, have put forward a unifying hypothesis that could explain the origin of the disease.

This great scientific "sleuth" examined exactly zero patients, did exactly zero lab work, and published his "hypothesis" in a pay-to-play journal publisher featured on Beall's list of bullshit mongers. This No-Shit Sherlock also misses the fact that CKDu was diagnosed before glyphosate was first synthesized.

[L0oniX]

100. Obvioulsy Monstanto has employees everywhere.

[Major Nikon]

101. The tin foil hat brigade seems to be well represented as well

[Octafish]

60. Asshats and emoticons for endocrine disrupters!

If these chemicals weren't so profitable, er, safe just as they are, they wouldn't need all the marketing yada yada glarble.

[SidDithers]

61. And the CT loons lap it up...

If you dig deep enough, I'm sure we'll find the BFEE behind GMOs too.

Sid

[NuclearDem]

71. First, Seralini is the Andrew Wakefield of anti-GMOs.

Second, BioMed Central is not PubMud Central; the former is a pay-to-play service, while the latter is run by the NLM/NCBI, and is legitimate.

Third, seriously, Seralini again?

[MohRokTah]

80. The anti-Science is STRONG in this thread.

Cannot abide anti-science regardless.

Anti-Vaxxers, Climate Change Deniers, and anti-GMO are all cut from the same anti-science cloth.

[HuckleB]

93. It's funny. I can't even see most of the posts in this thread.

[Major Nikon]

107. It's amazing what you learn in these threads

GMO will give you cancer in a year.

Michael Taylor controls the EPA from a subordinate position at the FDA (it's true, just look it up!)

GMO tomatoes have chicken DNA.

GMO produce contains antibiotics.

And the best part is....

if you call bullshit on any of this batshit crazy nonsense, you MUST be on Monsanto's payroll!

[bvar22]

113. Once more, your broad brush fantasy has proved to be very flawed.

(Don't you ever get embarrassed?
Were you laughed at a lot in school?)

My Wife & I are:
*Pro-Vaccination...for all Humans, Pets, and Live Stock.

*We believe we passed the Climate Change Tipping Point about 20 years ago,
but my Wife & I Walk the Walk. We moved to a rural area and started living a sustainable, low carbon footprint, toxin free lifestyle. Every year, our carbon footprint becomes smaller, we become more self sufficient, and produce MORE without harming the Earth or its inhabitants.
(BTW: My wife is a 2-time Cancer Survivor who has been in complete remission since we moved here and started growing our own food in 2006)

Do you just talk about Climate Change on the Internet,
or have YOU made sacrifices for the next generation and preservation of our Earth?

*GMO s and other non-naturally occurring fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are forever banned from our little hilltop. That is OUR choice. We live far from any agri-businesses or home owners that use these poisons, so we don't have to worry about Monsanto Toxic Bleed Over.
Also, our Honey Bee Colonies have NO CCD, and are as healthy & happy as Bees in clover.
Unfortunately, the Americans who have to shop in our supermarkets...so far...do NOT have the right to know what they are eating.

How long was it after exposure to Agent Orange before the cancers started appearing ?
IF you want to trust Monsanto with your and your kid's lives....alright with me.
YOU can have them. We'll do just fine without you or Monsanto.

Are you also Anti-Labeling like the other ProGMOs in this thread?
IF you are, please explain why they/you are SO Dead Set AGAINST letting Americans know what is in their food? So far, no one in the YAY-GMO crowd has been able to provide a reasonable answer.

[font size=3]"...because Americans have the RIGHT to know what is in their food!"[/font] Candidate Obama, 2008