Finally "GMO's rear its ugly head"

[squealpiggy]

Changing subjects much? Monsanto an american companys product is banned from russia (Giving you this one so you can change subject again about how Russia didnt ban their product just stopped importing) A study showed that gmo corn can cause cancer liver failure etc with a 2 year test study as opposed to a 3 month test study.
You immediately try to divert the subject into russias political agenda and then a study that might counter the findings of the study russia is going off of.

No, I said that researchers independent of both Monsanto and these French guys who performed the study referenced by the Daily Mail have raised concerns with the methodology and these are concerns of the gravest kind. In short the appearance is that the study has been data mined - the people performing the study knew the result that they wanted and went looking for data to support it. This is in addition to minor methodological issues like a failure to disclose how much and how often the rats were fed, using a species of lab rat that is particularly prone to tumours and the like.

After saying this I then made the comment that Russia has other motivations than the health and safety of its citizens.

This all goes back to your agenda. That being, nothing is ever wrong, everything is fine, dont question anything about the government. This time its a company in bed with the government monsanto. The best counter you can give to genetically modified corn is russias political agenda and that another study might disagree with this study so gmo corn cant be questioned right?

Wrong, you ignored most of my post and grabbed hold of the thing about Russia.

You are literally the love child of Eric Holder and Richard Dawkins. Diversion and confusion to what ends I dont really understand.

I don't know who Eric Holder is and I'm not sure how Richard Dawkins fits into your accusation that I automatically take the side of government.

Monsanto and other companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the development, distribution and marketing of their genetically modified product.

It is safe to assume, that if their private research revealed consequences that are unpredictable over the long-term -- They would not be so willing to make that info public, guarenteeing loss, and undemining their huge investiment.

Business funded studies, especially ones involving privacy/non-publish policies, are an ethical problem that needs to be addressed. I would suggest that the best way of fixing the problem would be to make greater investment in scientific research at universities so that the only studies performed are not those funded by vested interests.

However...

It is important to lend those conducting research outside of Monsanto, your ear and know that if any revelations about the unexplained danger's of GMO in the food supply, are to be revealed ... it will be from those independants.

There are myriad independent studies and reviews by organisations and bodies across the planet that have concluded no ill effects from long term consumption of genetically modified food. Studies, I might add, that haven't engaged in the statistical monkeying around seen in this French study.

You ignore those studies as well as ignoring reviews from the likes of the Royal Society of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences that point out, correctly, that there have been no observed long term ill effects from GM food consumption in humans over the last fifteen years of their use.

Why do you ignore them? Because the narrative to which you subscribe is that GM crops are bad (mkay) and here, look at this problematic study by a single research group and AAAAAH THE SKY IS FAAAALLLIIIINNNG!

Hell, we are talking about a greedy, For-Profit Multi-National company tampering with the FOOD-SUPPLY on a genetic level. This is something very, very SERIOUS!!!

You put this in bold so you obviously rillyrilly mean it. Why is it serious? Is it more serious than use of artificial fertiliser? What are your thoughts on artificial fertiliser?

Monsanto has been allowed to establish PATENTS on nature, therefore they have been given licence to conduct LIVE experimentation on human beings.

You know the handwringing makes you look paranoid. This sort of hyperbole just makes you look like a dick.

[Bermuda]

not very surprising...any food that is modified in a lab and/or sprayed with chemicals can't be very healthy for you in the long run. best option is to go organic (purchase food from your local farmer markets, and grow your own garden, etc.) if you want to ensure what you're eating is not unnaturally produced.

[squealpiggy]

not very surprising...any food that is modified in a lab and/or sprayed with chemicals can't be very healthy for you in the long run. best option is to go organic (purchase food from your local farmer markets, and grow your own garden, etc.) if you want to ensure what you're eating is not unnaturally produced.

Are you implying that farmers don't use pesticides and fertilisers?

[New England]

Are you implying that farmers don't use pesticides and fertilisers?

or spray them with the vicious dihydrogen monoxide, one of nature's most prolific and destructive chemicals?

[Bermuda]

Are you implying that farmers don't use pesticides and fertilisers?

well to my knowledge organic farmers don't use any sort of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. also just simply growing your own garden is a good alternative as well..

[squealpiggy]

well to my knowledge organic farmers don't use any sort of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. also just simply growing your own garden is a good alternative as well..

So are synthetic fertilisers a bad thing?

[squealpiggy]

Here's a roundup of what is wrong with this study:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...uestioned.html

To summarize:

1. Very small groups of test subjects - although 200 rats were used each study group consisted of just ten rats.

2. Only one control group - there should be a control group for each thing being tested, to ensure that the control group is not anomolous

3. Use of rats that are well known to be subject to tumours of the type tested for

4. Weird statistical methods - they had to search for the results they wanted to find

5. Some of the test groups experienced higher rates of tumours and some did not. This is not explained.

6. Increased dosages did not lead to increased effects, this is a test to show cause and effect. One cannot typically conclude that something causes something if increasing the dose doesn't increase the effect.

7. When the paper was sent to journalists for peer review they prohibited the referees from showing it to any other scientists

8. The group funding this study, the lead scientist and the researchers performing the study are well known anti-GMO activists.

[arraamis]

Anyone that would even attempt to diminish, or discredit the findings of these Scientists, is a fool, nothing short.

The biotech industry and university researchers involved in GM research have mounted a major PR campaign over the last year to win over sceptical consumers.

In the past week, pro-GM scientists have been lining up to undermine the French experiments and criticise the way they were conducted. However, a number of independent academics have praised the French team’s work, describing it as the most thorough and extensive feeding trials involving GM to date.

Mustafa Djamgoz, the Professor of Cancer Biology, at Imperial College, London, said the findings relating to eating GM corn were a ‘surprise’. Prof Djamgoz, who describes himself as a neutral on GM, said: ‘The results are significant. The experiments are, more or less, the best of their kind to date.’ However, he said that it is now important to ensure they are repeated with more animals by independent laboratories to confirm the outcome.

‘We are not scaremongering here. More research, including a repetition of this particular study are warranted,’ he said. The professor said it will take two to three years to get a definitive answer.

*******

Genetically modified foods … Are they safe?

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. The Academy reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.

Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.
gmo danger2

Since then, findings include:

Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants
Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies
More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller
Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly
By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies
Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity
Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.
Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us. This could mean:

If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics
If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

Although no studies have evaluated if antibiotic or Bt-toxin genes transfer, that is one of the key problems. The safety assessments are too superficial to even identify most of the potential dangers from GMOs. See our Health Risks brochure and State of the Science report for more details and citations.

[Canelo Phresh]

No, I said that researchers independent of both Monsanto and these French guys who performed the study referenced by the Daily Mail have raised concerns with the methodology and these are concerns of the gravest kind. In short the appearance is that the study has been data mined - the people performing the study knew the result that they wanted and went looking for data to support it. This is in addition to minor methodological issues like a failure to disclose how much and how often the rats were fed, using a species of lab rat that is particularly prone to tumours and the like.

After saying this I then made the comment that Russia has other motivations than the health and safety of its citizens.



Wrong, you ignored most of my post and grabbed hold of the thing about Russia.



I don't know who Eric Holder is and I'm not sure how Richard Dawkins fits into your accusation that I automatically take the side of government.



Business funded studies, especially ones involving privacy/non-publish policies, are an ethical problem that needs to be addressed. I would suggest that the best way of fixing the problem would be to make greater investment in scientific research at universities so that the only studies performed are not those funded by vested interests.

However...



There are myriad independent studies and reviews by organisations and bodies across the planet that have concluded no ill effects from long term consumption of genetically modified food. Studies, I might add, that haven't engaged in the statistical monkeying around seen in this French study.

You ignore those studies as well as ignoring reviews from the likes of the Royal Society of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences that point out, correctly, that there have been no observed long term ill effects from GM food consumption in humans over the last fifteen years of their use.

Why do you ignore them? Because the narrative to which you subscribe is that GM crops are bad (mkay) and here, look at this problematic study by a single research group and AAAAAH THE SKY IS FAAAALLLIIIINNNG!



You put this in bold so you obviously rillyrilly mean it. Why is it serious? Is it more serious than use of artificial fertiliser? What are your thoughts on artificial fertiliser?



You know the handwringing makes you look paranoid. This sort of hyperbole just makes you look like a dick.

So your point is that the researchers have an agenda and shouldnt be trusted? And that we should trust monsanto?

[Bermuda]

So are synthetic fertilisers a bad thing?

no i don't think synthetic fertilizers are a completely bad thing.. they do have some benefits. however natural fertilizers would seem to me to be a slightly better option considering that natural fertilizers are just decomposed organic matter..and i've heard natural fertilizers are more healthier for the soil as opposed to synthetic. but if someone feels uncomfortable with the amount of chemicals and genetic engineering that goes into their vegetables then why knock them for wanting to try organic? it only makes sense to me that any vegetables that is grown naturally would be healthier for the body.