Frankenfoods reduce global warming

[roseBudd]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/03/gm-crops-and-carbon-emissions

Many greens continue to be implacably opposed to GM crops, which they regard as environmentally harmful. This year’s ISAAA report tries to calculate the effects of GM crops on the environment. It says they saved the equivalent of 473m kilograms of pesticides in 2011 (because GM makes crops resistant to pests); saved 109m hectares of new land being ploughed up (GM crops are usually higher-yielding so less land is required for the same output) and reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by 23 billion kg of carbon dioxide equivalent.

GM crops in general need fewer field operations, such as tillage. Reducing tillage allows more residue to remain in the ground, sequestering more CO2 in the soil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fewer field operations also means lower fuel consumption and less CO2.

Greens won’t believe these claims and will probably point out that ISAAA gets money from Monsanto and other GM companies. But that is not a good enough reason to dismiss them (and anyway ISAAA also gets money from governments and the UN). The underlying claim that GM crops reduce carbon emissions seems strong.

[djean111]

1. Well, now we have "superweeds" and even worse poison is being used to try and kill them.

I read somewhere that governments are being pressured to re-authorize the use of 2,4-D on the new resistant weeds.
Agent orange.
And - of course, putting that stuff in our bodies is the least important part of the whole equation.

[Buzz Clik]

4. 2,4-D is agent orange? And it needs to be "re-authorized" for use on weeds?

I find all of that shocking.

[roamer65]

21. Agent orange was a 50-50 mix of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T

The worst part of agent orange was the 2,4,5-T which was heavily laced with a manufacturing byproduct known as 2,3,7,8-TCDD which is a extremely toxic dioxin. 2,4-D is not nice stuff but is definitely not as nasty as 2,3,7,8-TCDD.

[MuseRider]

32. Restricted?

Farmers use this crap all the time. I was just told it would be the best thing to take out some ragweed growing on my pond dam. I could have bought it right on the spot.

[bunnies]

2. So do rainforests.

Not that big $ gives a shit about them. Thanks for the PR, Monsanto, but I'll stick with organic. Assholes.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Are you going to eat a rainforest? Is that your point?

[djean111]

5. No, I think we will be cutting down the rainforest in order to mine and drill and plant GMO crops.

[Buzz Clik]

7. How is that possibly related to GMO plants? You think GMOs faciliatate that somehow?

[bunnies]

9. yes. Absolutely.

Every year, tropical forests equivalent to the size of the Netherlands are cleared in South America to make room for the cultivation of soy, even though the monocultures have already assumed unimaginable proportions: In Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, the genetically modified soy bean and corn variants of a single producer – the US corporation Monsanto – grow on 45 million hectares.

Monsanto’s chemists have made the plants’ genetic make-up immune to Roundup, Monsanto’s proprietary, non-selective herbicide. The active ingredient is glyphosate, a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide. While Monsanto’s patented beans survive the sprayings, all other vegetation dies.

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/mailalert/889/stop-monsanto-soy

[Buzz Clik]

12. Obsess much?

Seriously, when you start answering for other people to post the same shit, you've got a problem.

But let's keep playing -- it's called Seven Degrees of Separation for Monsanto. Find something you really hate and connect it to Monsanto in seven degrees or less. Then, blame it squarely on Monsanto. Anybody can play. Just one rule: there are no rules!

[bunnies]

14. Wait. Im confused. Am I allowed to post here? nt

[Buzz Clik]

16. Obviously, and you and I were already discussing when you decided to open a parallel discussion.

Post if you want, but that opens you to criticism. It's part of the freedom of expression -- it goes two ways.

Let me try the F*** Monsanto game:

1) My dog peed on the floor last night. 2) I needed a special cleaner to remove the urine and its smell. 3) The cleaner has chemicals in it. 4) Monsanto makes chemicals. Therefore, it is in Monsanto's best interest for my dog to pee on the floor.

Damn you Monsanto!

[bunnies]

19. lol.

Yes. It would be in Monsantos best interest for your dog to pee on the floor. In fact, theyre probably trying to GM dog breed that refuses to pee outside!

[Buzz Clik]

28. That is precisely the logic you are using. Precisely.

Stupid, isn't it?

[bunnies]

40. Not stupid.

Though I was kinda mocking myself with the whole dog breeding thing.
But really, its the same as big-pharma benefiting from people being diseased. When there is a "need" for a companies product, it benefits the company. No?

[roseBudd]

24. Organic requires more acres tilled. Not less.

If we do not respect science we are no better than the climate change deniers.

http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-study-faces-growing-scrutiny-1.11566

Moreover, the study used Sprague-Dawley rats, which both reviews note are prone to developing spontaneous tumours. Data provided to Nature by Harlan Laboratories, which supplied the rats in the study, show that only one-third of males, and less than one-half of females, live to 104 weeks. By comparison, its Han Wistar rats have greater than 70% survival at 104 weeks, and fewer tumours. OECD guidelines state that for two-year experiments, rats should have a survival rate of at least 50% at 104 weeks. If they do not, each treatment group should include even more animals — 65 or more of each sex.

“There is a high probability that the findings in relation to the tumour incidence are due to chance, given the low number of animals and the spontaneous occurrence of tumours in Sprague-Dawley rats,” concludes the EFSA report. In response to the EFSA’s assessment, the European Federation of Biotechnology — an umbrella body in Barcelona, Spain, that represents biotech researchers, institutes and companies across Europe — called for the study to be retracted, describing its publication as a “dangerous case of failure of the peer-review system”.

Yet Séralini has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work. Only a select group of journalists (not including Nature) was given access to the embargoed paper, and each writer was required to sign a highly unusual confidentiality agreement, seen by Nature, which prevented them from discussing the paper with other scientists before the embargo expired.

Journalists often receive embargoed journal articles, and standard practice is to solicit independent assessments before the paper is published. The agreement for this paper, however, did not allow any disclosure and threatened a severe penalty for non-compliance: “A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study.”

In an exceptional move, the ethics committee of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) last week decried the public-relations offensive as inappropriate for a high-quality and objective scientific debate, and reminded researchers working on controversial topics of the need to report results responsibly to the public.

[roseBudd]

25. Sprague-Dawley rats are the Angelina Jolie of research rats

Seralini used Sprague-Dawley rats.


http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-study-faces-growing-scrutiny-1.11566

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/700_researchers_call_gilleseric_seralini_release_gmo_test_data-95574

“The serious demands by Seralini that regulatory bodies and the public make decisions about how food is grown based on his report require that he be transparent about the means and measures by which he has drawn conclusions,” said Klaus Ammann, PhD, professor plant systems, Biosafety Committee of the Government of Switzerland, Chairman EFB Section on Biodiversity, University of Bern, Switzerland notes,. “Anything less than the normal, full disclosures of data, leaves us all victims of political manipulation and highly theatrical propaganda – this is not science.”

“The basic code of scientific ethics requires that scientists release all data associated with a peer reviewed scientific paper,” noted Bruce Chassy, PhD, professor emeritus, Food Science&Nutrition, University of Illinois, United States.

“The claims made by this study contradict an extensive body of independent and widely accepted scientific research,” said C.S. Prakash, PhD, Professor, Plant Molecular Genetics, Tuskegee University. “The few details shared about the Seralini study indicate significant flaws in common research and analytical practices, the only way to take this seriously is to allow an open review of the data behind these claims.”

Hundreds of scientists are pointing to the recent findings by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food safety (BVL) and the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) which concluded that the Seralini’s deductions are not justified because of shortcomings in study design, data evaluation and presentation methods. In the absence of disclosure, the petitioning scientists are calling on the publishing journal editors to retract the Seralini study.

Petition link: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dr-seralini-please-release-data/signatures

[NoOneMan]

49. Organic no-till farming/horticulture?

No. No it doesn't.

[roseBudd]

53. Organic can not feed the entire planet

[NoOneMan]

61. Oh, but who has the time to care about preserving everyone who is polluting the planet

Either they need to learn how to live in harmony with the land or get the fuck off the land. People dying is no excuse to keep revving up and doubling down on the perpetual idiocy that is leading to the 6th extinction.

This entire argument is absurd anyway. Maybe 25% of corn grown actually gets eaten by humans and we have almost a billion people actually starving to death. Don't tell me that changing the status quo is catastrophic when the status quo is a crisis and its propelling us toward full out disaster.

[roseBudd]

92. The very picture of an ugly American

I am dumbfounded by your cavalier attitude.

[NoOneMan]

97. Ditto

We are careening toward an extinction level event--that will devastate the lives of the people you purportedly wish to feed--and it seems you advocate staying the course of exploitation, devastation and starvation (which IS the status quo). Its time for a change. Either path ensures death of some magnitude, but one choice leaves a viable future for the current inhabitants of the earth.

[bunnies]

8. I'd eat something from a rainforest before Id eat that Monsanto shit.

But thats not the point. The big spin here is that this gm crap reduces global warming. And? So do rainforests. But Monsanto wipes them out to plant shit thats not even "food" for humans.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Wow. Those Monsanto boys get around. Now, they're into clearing rainforests.

[bunnies]

13. Its ok. You can deny the facts if you want.

Bliss and all that.

[Buzz Clik]

15. I don't deny that rainforests are being cleared, but Monsanto's involvement is next to nothing.

[bunnies]

18. I dont understand how you can say that.

Theres much evidence to the contrary. In addition to what I posted earlier...

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_23243.cfm

[Buzz Clik]

27. Let's count the degrees of separation:

1) Farmers need land, so they clear the rainforest. 2) Farmers plant soybeans on land they cleared from the rainforest. 3) Farmers buy their soybeans from whomever is giving them the product they want -- is some cases it's Monsanto.

Three degrees, not bad.

Cleary, Monsanto is clearing the rainforest.

[bunnies]

43. And Monsanto doesnt strong-arm these farmers at all.

Ever.

[Buzz Clik]

46. So ... we're changing to a new subject?

Or are you telling me that Monsanto is forcing people to clear the rainforest?

Let's assume for a second that Monsanto went *poof* and disappeared from the face of the earth. You and the "f*ck Monsanto" crowd would be elated. But, would clearing of the rainforest immediately cease? Slow down? Would their absence have any impact on the rainforest whatsoever?

[bunnies]

48. Not changing the subject...

Just pointing out that Monsanto isnt the innocent bystander that just *happens* to benefit when others decide to rip apart the earth.

Perhaps we'll get to see what happens without their hand in everything. 15 countries have already banned them. Hopefully the trend will continue. I dont know exactly what would / will happen. Nobody does. You know that. But I do know that it would be one big threat to the earth removed.

[Buzz Clik]

52. No. Just a perceived threat by you and your ilk.

Other than their predatory business practices, the abject fear and hatred of Monsanto is founded on ignorance.

Have the last word.

[bunnies]

58. ok.

They drown their products in poison that should render it inedible by any standard. And the damage they do to the earth should be illegal. If that doesnt warrant abject hatred I dont know what should. Ignorance? Not hardly.

[Le Taz Hot]

6. This message brought to you by Monsanto

who assured us that D-D-T and Agent Orange were PERFECTLY SAFE.

[forestpath]

22. +1000

[roseBudd]

91. The uncontrolled variable of allowing rodents to consume excessive energy and the complicating ....

The uncontrolled variable of allowing rodents to consume excessive energy and the complicating effects of this procedure on the design, results and interpretation of toxicology and carcinogenicity studies continues to be largely neglected by many regulators, toxicologists and pathologists

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/5/851S.full

Feeding natural ingredient diets that varied in protein, fiber and metabolizable energy content did not improve low 2-y survival if Sprague-Dawley rats were allowed AL food consumption.

Science, not baseless fraudulent fear mongering by spoiled Americans who will never suffer from malnutrition

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse%20rattenstudie%20S%C3%A9ralini%20et%20al.pdf

Synopsis


On 19 September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and his colleagues published a sensational study that, in
their opinion, brought to the fore clear indications that genetically modified crops and Roundup are
dangerous to health. Media across the world picked up on this report and published disturbing
photos of rats with enormous tumors. Scientists reacted with shock and were quick to criticize the
study. The scientific analysis in this document shows the research design that Séralini et al. used
contained fundamental shortcomings that preclude any sensible conclusions from being drawn. In
other words, the statements that Séralini made about the health effects of GMOs and Roundup were
baseless. Moreover, the research shows signs of selective interpretation of the findings or a
misleading representation of these, which is contrary to prevailing scientific ethical standards.

The Flemish Interuniversity for Biotechnology [Vlaams Interuniversitair Instituut voor Biotechnologie
(VIB)] was also shocked at the images and the messages that the study provoked in the media. Let it
be clear that VIB is in no way involved in the development of NK6032 maize that the study used, and
that they have no stake whatsoever in the herbicide Roundup. However, VIB is a world authority in
plant research that uses genetically modified plants as a research resource. New knowledge that VIB
garners in this way can, in some cases, contribute to the development of genetically modified crops.
For this reason, VIB considers it their social duty to thoroughly examine new information about the
possible health effects of genetically modified plants.

[mattclearing]

11. That higher yield statement is crap.

And according to this website, so is the premise of this article.

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

[roseBudd]

26. Your link references Seralini's fraudulent "study"

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/145-vital-link-article-on-health-hazards-of-genetically-modified-foods

Embracing bad science makes us no better than Tea Bagger climate change deniers

"Genetically modified (GM) food is discussed as an example of the controversial relation between the intrinsic uncertainty of the scientific approach and the demand of citizen-consumers to use products of science innovation that are known to be safe. On the whole, peer-reviewed studies on GM food safety do not note significant health risks, with a few exceptions, like the most renowned "Pusztai affair" and the recent "Seralini case." These latter studies have been disregarded by the scientific community, based on incorrect experimental designs and statistic analysis. Such contradictory results show the complexity of risk evaluation, and raise concerns in the citizen-consumers against the GM food. A thoughtful consideration by scientific community and decision makers of the moral values that are present in risk evaluation and risk management should be the most trustable answer to citizen-consumers to their claim for clear and definitive answers concerning safety/un-safety of GM food"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23444254

[Berlum]

41. Seralini's study was spot-on correct

What was fraudulent was all the corporate whitewashing and spin that obscured the truth.

Don't go trying to change reality to fit some poisonous corporate agenda

[roseBudd]

54. That is false

Stating something does not make it true. Fear mongering is despicable.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/11/19/anti-gm-corn-study-reconsidered-seralini-finally-responds-to-torrent-of-criticism/

"The French and Russian governments quickly launched investigations into the safety of NK603 and Russia and Kazakhstan placed temporary bans on its imports. Six leading French academies quickly reviewed the study and issued an unequivocal condemnation: “Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanor when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion,” the academies’ statement said.

After an expedited review, the French food safety authority ANSES, concluded that the study “did not cast doubt on previous assessments of [the safety of] NK603,” although the agency called for large-scale studies on “insufficiently documented health risks.”

Food and Chemical Toxicology, which published the study in September, recently released more than three dozen response letters from top scientists in its November issue and a response from the Séralini team. Among the highlights:

Alexander Y. Panchin, Russian Academy of Sciences: Analyzed and dismissed the study because of its lack of statistical significance in the mortality rates or the number of tumors in rats.

Andrew Cockburn, University of Newcastle, contended the study had no “logical hypothesis” and does not “meet current standards of scientific adequacy.” He questioned “how this paper passed review in its current form and the impact of this for the normally high standards adopted by your Journal.”

Frederick Schorsch, European Society of Toxicologic Pathology (ESTP), cited numerous methodological deficiencies, including the misinterpretation of lesions, the bungled presentation of pathology results, the absence of reference to ‘good practices’ in toxicologic pathology and the mistreatment of animals (which showed immense tumors) in what appeared to be an attempt to make a political point.

David Tribe, University of Melbourne, further summarized a range of reactions including reviews by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) and German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which were universally condemnatory."

[Zoeisright]

70. Right back atcha.

Posting fraudulent studies is despicable too, dear. Especially when those "studies" are conducted by shills for Monsanto.

[roseBudd]

93. Yet you point to no research that backs Seralini....

Bet you won't read this

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse%20rattenstudie%20S%C3%A9ralini%20et%20al.pdf

Séralini et al. fed each of the test diets to a group of male and a group of female animals. In this way,
they tested a total of 10 different diets, of which one was a control. For each diet, they tested 10
animals of each sex, or 200 rats in total. All the animals had free access to the food and drinking
water. In other words, there was no restriction on how many calories the animals could consume.

3. Breed of rats used
For their study, Séralini et al. used ‘Sprague-Dawley rats’. This is a laboratory strain that is known for
its propensity to the spontaneous development of tumors (see www.harlaneurope.com under
‘lifespan and disease’). The number of tumors that the rats develop spontaneously depends on the
amount of food that they are given

. The number of spontaneous tumors is highest when these rats are allowed to consume calories without any restriction
. Various figures for spontaneous tumors are reported. There are publications that mention 42 to 72% among female animals5-6
. Among male animals these figures are slightly lower, but there is a study that mentions over 86%7
. The fact that these animals have a propensity for the spontaneous development of tumors was not mentioned
by Séralini et al. in their article, nor how they addressed this in their research design. The rats can
also develop tumors at a very early stage. Schardein et al. (1968)8 reported that 6 out of 3,000 rats
spontaneously develop tumors within three months, 10 out of 700 within 6 months, 20 out of 400
within 9 months, etc., increasing within 18 months to figures approaching the percentages
mentioned above for 2 years.

[mattclearing]

86. Thanks for this.

After perusing your link and the link below, I see the flaws in this particular bit of research. That's where we part ways with the Tea Party, who reflexively accept whatever confirms their bias in spite of compelling contrary evidence. Clearly, rats develop tumors no matter what you feed them.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/09/why-i-think-the-seralini-gm-feeding-trial-is-bogus/

That said, the global warming and yield claims are still crap, and Monsanto's business practices are vile.

You can cherry-pick to disqualify the ISAAA (who are funded by Monsanto) just as easily as you cherry-picked Open-Source Earth, but at the end, Monsanto will still be suing the world's farmers into paying for their product and attempting to patent minor changes to food they didn't invent in order to make people the world over dependent on them for basic needs.

[roseBudd]

103. Seralini also allowed the Sprague-Dawley rats to free feed

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse%20rattenstudie%20S%C3%A9ralini%20et%20al.pdf

. The number of tumors that the rats develop spontaneously depends on the amount of food that they are given. . The number of spontaneous tumors is highest when these rats are allowed to consume calories without any restriction

[Generic Other]

17. It's not easy being green

[roseBudd]

29. I use Roundup on the stumps of invasive European Buckthorn, Japanese Honeysuckle...

poison ivy and asshole mullberry tress growing where they don't belong, inside my magnolia

[Generic Other]

42. You are not making me eat your poison asshole mulberries!

I understand your use of the product. It isn't illegal even if it is dangerous.

I myself won't use anything in my garden because I have read studies linking the chemicals to higher incidence of breast cancer.

[roseBudd]

55. No one is eating that asshole mulberry tree that tried to grow where it does not belong.

I am killing it the only way I can without damaging the magnolia I planted

Nor will I be eating honeysuckle stumps

[Generic Other]

59. That's why I don't care if you use it

But if you spray that crap on my strawberries, Ima gonna come take your spray bottle away from you!

[prole_for_peace]

64. I refuse to use Roundup in my yard

I didn't like the idea of the poison runoff after it rains. I found a mixture of apple cider vinegar, salt and a teeny tiny bit of dish soap (the recipe said Dawn but I use phosphate free "green" soap) will kill weeds within a day or two. We had a HUGE crabgrass that would not die and this killed it in 36 hours

[roseBudd]

65. Will not kill honeysuckle, buckthorn or poison ivy

I will be fighting honeysuckle, buckthorn, hackberry and mulberry until I am too old to cut or girdle them.

[prole_for_peace]

68. From you previous posts I know that you prefer Roundup

I was replying to Generic Other with a suggestion of a non-harmful (except to weeds) weed killer

[Generic Other]

79. Any bug I hate enough in my yard is usually easy to get with soap

Aphids. Spritz em. With Dawn. Just like BP.

[Zoeisright]

73. You don't know much about human exposure to chemicals, do you?

You don't have to eat a toxin to be affected by it. Christ.

[roseBudd]

89. There were fewer deaths among the male rats that had drunk the highest concentration of Roundup

Show me the literature that proves Roundup specifically causes anything. Seralini's Sprague-Dawley free fed rats excluded. Just overfeeding Sprague-Dawley rats induces tumors, in a rat that develops tumors spontaneously.

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse%20rattenstudie%20S%C3%A9ralini%20et%20al.pdf

There were fewer deaths among the male rats that had drunk the highest concentration of Roundup than among those who had
drunk pure water (the right hand side of the figure below). And this while Roundup certainly does not contain any known life-extending properties. The researchers should have taken these observations as a warning that there was something wrong with the experiment, because if these results were correct it would mean that consuming large amounts of genetically modified NK603 maize or
Roundup would be a way to live longer. These strange findings are not interpretable because as noted previously there is something fundamentally wrong with the research design.


http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/5/851S.full

The Effects of Diet, Overfeeding and Moderate Dietary Restriction on Sprague-Dawley Rat Survival, Disease and Toxicology1
Kevin P. Keenan2, Gordon C. Ballam*, Rakesh Dixit, Keith A. Soper, Philippe Laroque, Britta A. Mattson, Stephen P. Adams, and John B. Coleman
+ Author Affiliations

Departments of Safety Assessment and Biometrics, Merck Research Laboratories, West Point, PA 19486and Riom, France, and *Purina Mills Inc., St. Louis, MO 63166

Next Section
Abstract

Overfeeding by ad libitum (AL) food consumption is the most significant, uncontrolled variable affecting the outcome of the current rodent bioassay. The correlation of food consumption, the resultant adult body weight and the 2-y survival in Sprague-Dawley rats is highly significant. Feeding natural ingredient diets that varied in protein, fiber and metabolizable energy content did not improve low 2-y survival if Sprague-Dawley rats were allowed AL food consumption. Moderate dietary restriction (DR) of all diets tested significantly improved survival and delayed the onset of spontaneous degenerative disease (i.e., nephropathy and cardiomyopathy) and diet-related tumors. By 2 y, moderate DR resulted in an incidence of spontaneous tumors similar to that seen with AL consumption; however, the tumors were more likely to be incidental and did not result in early mortality. There was a decreased age-adjusted incidence in pituitary and mammary gland tumors, but tumor volume and growth time were similar in the AL and DR groups, indicating a similar tumor progression with a delay in tumor onset. Moderate DR did not significantly alter drug-metabolizing enzyme activities or the toxicologic response to five pharmaceuticals tested at maximum tolerated doses (MTD). However, moderate DR did require higher doses of compounds to be given before classical MTD were produced with four pharmaceutical drug candidates. Toxicokinetic studies of two of these compounds demonstrated steady-state systemic exposures that were equal or higher in moderate DR-fed rats. These and other data indicate that moderate DR is the most appropriate method of dietary control for rodent bioassays used to assess human safety of candidate pharmaceuticals.

[Zoeisright]

72. Good luck. You'll need it.

Glyphosate, which is the main weed killer in Roundup, destroys your gut bacteria which is a large source of our immunity.

http://grist.org/food/gut-punch-monsanto-could-be-destroying-your-microbiome/

Monsanto claims that Roundup is safe for people because glyphosate only affects the shikimate pathway in plants. But guess what? Gut bacteria in HUMANS also have that pathway.

Inflammatory bowel disease, mammary tumors, depression, many cancers, and Alzheimer's disease have all been linked to glyphosate exposure.

[Buzz Clik]

77. This is the BIG BIG problem with these so-called studies:

Please quote somewhere in that article where it states, as you claim, that "glyphosate, which is the main weed killer in Roundup, destroys your gut bacteria." Just toss out the experimental evidence to support your claim, and we'll all go home.

[roseBudd]

94. What they fail to report, however, is that the observed effects in many cases overlap with the

What they fail to report, however, is that the observed effects in many cases overlap with the effects
that were observed in the control groups. They can only invoke non-dose-related effects as an
explanation if these effects are not observed in the control group, and that is not the case. Over
and above this, in their conclusion Séralini and his team attribute the non-dose-related effects to the
non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup. They ignore the fact that comparable non-linear
effects can also be seen in the treatments that did not include Roundup, perhaps because this would
undermine their conclusion. And, as we noted previously, for several of the treatments the lowest
mortality was among those who had been given the highest doses. Mortality increases in line with
the dose when the substance is in actual fact carcinogenic.

Because of the small number of control animals and the absence of adequate controls, the reliability
of the limited data is seriously compromised and so Séralini et al. go to great lengths to find
explanations for their findings. They ignore, however, the most obvious explanation, namely that
the established variability in the data is not supported by a proper research design, which
precludes adequate interpretation of the data. Moreover, they use an unorthodox statistical
method (‘two class discriminant analysis’) that aims at finding differences instead of investigating
differences between the treated animals and the control group.
In other words, they are only looking for interpretations that support their theory.

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse%20rattenstudie%20S%C3%A9ralini%20et%20al.pdf

[siligut]

20. Doesn't matter if GMOs are still causing illness and death in living things

Poisoning the planet and our food is bad, doesn't matter how much good PR they put out.

[roseBudd]

30. Show me the science to back up that claim

"Genetically modified (GM) food is discussed as an example of the controversial relation between the intrinsic uncertainty of the scientific approach and the demand of citizen-consumers to use products of science innovation that are known to be safe. On the whole, peer-reviewed studies on GM food safety do not note significant health risks, with a few exceptions, like the most renowned "Pusztai affair" and the recent "Seralini case." These latter studies have been disregarded by the scientific community, based on incorrect experimental designs and statistic analysis. Such contradictory results show the complexity of risk evaluation, and raise concerns in the citizen-consumers against the GM food. A thoughtful consideration by scientific community and decision makers of the moral values that are present in risk evaluation and risk management should be the most trustable answer to citizen-consumers to their claim for clear and definitive answers concerning safety/un-safety of GM food"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23444254

[Generic Other]

45. Let the marketplace decide

We all talk the big talk about capitalism being all about the demands of the marketplace. Free enterprise. Give consumers a choice. If your product is the one we deem most healthy, then GMOs will fly off the shelves in a mad frenzy. But you already know that won't happen. We won't eat shitfood no matter what science you dredge up to make it palatable. You are asking us to accept an adulteration of our food comparable to asking us to substitute dung beetles for meat, drink carcinogenic artificial sweetners, eat more chemically processed reconstituted, dehydrated, infested, suspected, rejected products than we already do. I am not convinced we wouldn't be safer collecting and drinking our own urine than eating anything grown from Monsanto seed. That's how repugnant I find the idea of Monsanto contaminating my food.

And therein lies the problem. I am not alone. So your science is not going to change my utter revulsion to your product. If I believe it is little better than soylent green, I am never going to develop a "taste" for it.

Let the marketplace decide. Or is Monsanto just one big genetically modified chicken?

[Generic Other]

60. Guess someone poisoned the crickets too cause I'd be hearing them now otherwise...

My unreasonable stubborn emotional illogical refusal to buy your BS product puts you outta business every time. Oh too bad. So sad.

Guess you must have found a bedbug infestation to fight.

[bunnies]

88. Apologies to your significant other...

but I think I love you.

[wisechoice]

62. farmers are committing suicide

Theoretically technology should help but not Monsanto. They are for profit and they don't care for environment.

[Zoeisright]

74. Here you go:

From an ex Monsato employee:

http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2006/11/ex-monsanto-employee-says-gmo-crops.html

BTW, not many people (obviously you) do not know that Monsanto's tests showing the "safety" of their products ended after three months. Animals fed their products developed tumors at four months.

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/07/30/scientist-draws-connection-between-morgellons-disease-and-gmos-elizabeth-dougherty-food-nation-radio-network-audio/

You've got a lot of reading to do there, dear.

[Buzz Clik]

78. Arguing science on these threads is a total waste of time.

It is exactly like trying to argue climate science with the rightwingnuts -- they don't listen and they don't care.

I applaud your effort and encourage you to keep trying.

[Generic Other]

80. No there is a big difference

Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2013, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)

You are trying to put food in my mouth I do not want to eat. You do not have the right to force feed me. Doesn't matter whether I think the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese.

I will not eat them here or there
I will not eat them anywhere
I do not like GMO corn
Monsantos Round-up makes me sick
I do not like it dear Buzz Clik
I do not like GMO grain
not in a box not on a train
not watching Fox not eating spam
No green eggs no lab grown ham.

[Buzz Clik]

81. Are not organic foods non-GMO?

And you do realize that the planting of GMO seeds is a choice by farmers. They pay more for these seeds because they want to.

Great Suess knockoff, by the way.

[Generic Other]

82. I come from a hundred generations of rice farmers

They never starved. They don't need Monsanto. They trust their heirloom seeds.
Save the the round-up for Uncle Ben's. Don't tell my Japanese relatives how to grow rice.

[Buzz Clik]

85. exactly.

Please tell that to those on this and other Monsanto threads that Monsanto does not own and operate all of agriculture across the world.

[roseBudd]

95. This disturbs me because climzate change is real, GM crops = cancer is not

There is an opportunity cost, and a credibility issue.

the Alar panic a case in point

but hey the CEO of Whole Foods has to be happy

[Buzz Clik]

96. "There is an opportunity cost, and a credibility issue." +1

This gives the environmental movement a huge black eye and puts us on the same plane as the climate change deniers.

So frustrating!

[wisechoice]

98. it frustates me that you hang on to one study

And reject all other as unscientific. From wiki
"A US survey published in 2001 analyzed 150 growing seasons of data on grain and soybean crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields.[86]

A study spanning two decades was published in 2002 and found a 20% smaller yield from organic farms using 50% less fertilizer, 97% less pesticide, and energy input was 34% to 53% lower.[88]

A 2003 study found that during drought years, organic farms can have yields 20-40% higher than conventional farms.[89] Organic farms are more profitable in the drier states of the United States, likely due to their superior drought performance.[90]"

[NoOneMan]

100. How is advocating any form of conventional mono-cropping congruent with climate concern?

Seriously? I don't care how the hell people are growing corn (near 80% it goes to cattle or used for ethanol production) or soy. Its responsible for a whole lot of climate problems itself (not to mention health problems--organic or not). I mean really? Franken corn vs hippie corn? Either argument is ridiculous, though arguing for crops that are genetically modified to tolerate poisons seems mind-numbing in the current state of things.


Anyone who really cares about climate (or human health) wouldn't shill for either end of the argument while evoking climate change. Its time for a paradigm shift.

[forestpath]

23. Gee, I feel better already.

[roseBudd]

33. Are you a scientist?

"Not all lectins are toxic. They are ubiquitous carbohydrate binding proteins. All mammalian cells and blood and all plant nuts, seeds, and bulbs, including many non-toxic food components, contain lectins.The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control2 Some of these, in red kidney beans for example, are toxic and need to be destroyed by heat before consumption,The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control3 but others such as tomato lectin are apparently harmless when eaten raw. Many plant lectins have an insecticidal or antifungal role in the plant. Some of these food lectins have interesting biological effects. We have recently shown that the common edible mushroom lectin that is often eaten raw selectively inhibits nuclear protein import.The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control4 The snowdrop lectin (GNA) binds to mannose, which is minimally expressed in mammalian intestine but extensively expressed in the intestine of sap sucking insects. Thus expression of this lectin in food plants might render them unattractive to insects but safe for human consumption, particularly if the food (potato) is always cooked before ingestion."

[forestpath]

35. I don't have to be a scientist to know that Monsanto is toxic to the planet.

So you can save your GMO shilling.

[roseBudd]

56. So climate scientists good, agriculture scientists trying to kill the planet

How is this not confirmation bias

[forestpath]

83. ROFL - you have the gall to bring up BIAS as you desperately pimp Monsanto?

That's a good one!

[roseBudd]

87. Rejecting research that is flawed is intellectual honesty. Calling someone a pimp is ad hominem

Why do the GM is evil true believers refuse to read the scientific literature.

It is readily available outside of the layperson media.

But you will refuse to read the following just as surely as a climate change denier will refuse to read realclimate.org

Get back to me with a reasoned response after you read the fiollowing including the comments at the end.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/11/19/anti-gm-corn-study-reconsidered-seralini-finally-responds-to-torrent-of-criticism/

[forestpath]

99. Tell it to Japan.

[NightWatcher]

31. Those silly Greens just don't get it

Nope we sure as hell don't get how screwing around with Mother Nature, who btw has been getting it done for billions of years, is supposed to be a good or smart thing. "Can" and "Should" are different. Can you mess with Nature, sure. Should you?

[roseBudd]

34. Should people starve to death? Or should agriculture science mitigate.

I find spoiled Americans attitudes curious. You can shop at Whole Foods. Billions of others don't have the luxury of zero percent chance of issues related to not enough food.

[NightWatcher]

38. They are not using Frankenfoods for good

They are using it for quicker, cheaper turnaround so they can sell it again. They are modifying the seeds so you have to buy new every season, when before this years crop would seed next years crop. Monsanto and others are not doing this to feed the poor. If you can't afford their product they're not going give it away.

[bunnies]

44. You really think all that corn and soybeans are feeding people?

Really?

[NoOneMan]

50. This is the age of full-bellies

Malnourished full-bellies that have to shell out every penny their toil earns to cure them from their cancers

(besides the quarter billion people starving to death)

[jazzimov]

36. So, we can die from climate change

OR die from cancer and god-knows-what-else from our food.

Whoever wrote this article must think that we are very naive.

[roseBudd]

51. What cancer. Seralini's research does not back up that claim

http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-study-faces-growing-scrutiny-1.11566

Yet Séralini has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work. Only a select group of journalists (not including Nature) was given access to the embargoed paper, and each writer was required to sign a highly unusual confidentiality agreement, seen by Nature, which prevented them from discussing the paper with other scientists before the embargo expired.

Journalists often receive embargoed journal articles, and standard practice is to solicit independent assessments before the paper is published. The agreement for this paper, however, did not allow any disclosure and threatened a severe penalty for non-compliance: “A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study.”

In an exceptional move, the ethics committee of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) last week decried the public-relations offensive as inappropriate for a high-quality and objective scientific debate, and reminded researchers working on controversial topics of the need to report results responsibly to the public.

[gollygee]

37. Wow. I read an anti solar power thread, and now a pro Monsato thread.

Interesting day at DU.

[roseBudd]

57. Not pro Monsanto to insist on scientific rigor not Seralini's fear mongering

I have a feeling you won't read this, just as climate change deniers won't read realclimate.org

http://www.science20.com/cool-links/hyped_s%C3%A9ralini_gm_maize_study_looks_worse_every_day-95172

[Brainstormy]

39. LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES

First, GMOs DO NOT reduce the need for pesticides:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pesticides-gmo-monsanto-roundup-resistance_n_1936598.html

http://naturalsociety.com/study-confirms-gmo-crops-causing-more-pesticide-use-superweeds/

Secon, they have NOT demonstrated higher yield.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

And the suggestion that GMOs reduce global warming is laughable, when corporate control of farming and GMO monoculture is destroying biodiversity and forests at a breathtaking rate. (Although Monsanto is already working on GMO trees.) And the conversion of grasslands and pastures into chemical-driven, industrial crop land has eliminated much of the natural filtering of ground water that native landscapes typically provide, so less watering is an empty promise, too.

The only hint of truth is this article is that ISAAA is, indeed, biotech's mouthpiece.

[wisechoice]

63. thank you

Monsanto evil and pretending to help people with science. It is like bp ad that shows they care about environment.

[ellenfl]

47. yeah, and if you killed a bunch of people there would be less co2 in the air. eom

[roseBudd]

67. Salmonella and E. Coli have killed people, not GM corn. Sprague-Dawley rats develop tumors

by 104 days no matter what they eat

[Zoeisright]

75. Wow. Another lie!

You must work for Monsanto.

[ellenfl]

76. how do you know gm corn hasn't killed anyone? i know of some indian farmers it has killed. eom

[prole_for_peace]

66. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others [4]. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [42]. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types. In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.

[Zoeisright]

69. Wow, is that ever wrong.

Use of Roundup has more than doubled in the past 10 years, because superweeds are becoming resistant to it.

And yields are NOT increasing in these spectacular numbers.

Finally, ISAAA is corrupt; they work for Monsanto. Christ, get a fucking clue.

[prole_for_peace]

71. Monsanto Weedkiller and GM maize implicated in new cancer study

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/technology-and-supply-chain/monsanto-weedkiller-and-gm-maize-in-shocking-cancer-study/232603.article

The world’s best-selling weedkiller, and a genetically modified maize resistant to it, can cause tumours, multiple organ damage and lead to premature death, new research published today reveals.

[roseBudd]

102. That is the discredited Seralini study using Sprague-Dawley rats

Confirmation bias.

The “Seralini case” is the most recent example of controversy associated with scientific publications on GM food evaluation. Authors aimed at assessing the long-term toxicity of the commercial formulation of Roundup herbicide and the maize line NK603 (Monsanto Corp., USA) harboring the gene encoding a glyphosate tolerant form of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) and developed to allow the use of the herbicide glyphosate as a weed control option in corn . As compared with its nearest isogenic non transgenic counterpart, rat feeding for two years with maize NK603 with or without supplements of the herbicide, resulted in severe kidney nephropathies and a significant sex-dependent increased mortality, development of large mammary tumors in females and liver congestions and necrosis in males. These outcomes were explained as a non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of herbicide as well as the overexpression of the transgene in the GM maize and its metabolic consequences. Together with the data originated from the study, doubts on the reliability of official risk evaluation methods were raised, in particular concerning duration of the long-term evaluation. Moreover, in the concluding remarks, further studies were forecasted concerning the assessment of “other mutagenic and metabolic effects of the edible GMO, which, according to Authors, ‘cannot be excluded’” .

These alarming results and related pictures of rats bearing tumors resonated in the media and on the internet, opening a renewed concern in citizen-consumers against the use of biotech applications in food and feed, and motivating criticism by various actors involved in biotech matters (The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.

As for governments, the French and Russian launched investigations into the safety of NK603, and Russia and Kazakhstan placed temporary bans on its imports. Scientific community – with few exceptions (– replied with a quantity of opinions and response letters from top scientists, where the Seralini study was dismissed and a more solid peer-review system in scientific journals was claimed for

As for institutions deputed to safety evaluation, EFSA delivered its final statement (also in agreement with the independent assessments by organizations of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands), which recommended rejection of this paper as scientifically unsound and stated a no need to re-examine its previous safety evaluations of maize NK603. Weaknesses in the methodology and experimental design, leading to misleading conclusions, were the basic faults assessed in this paper in particular deriving from the use of inappropriate animal line bearing a natural tumor formation rate of more than 50% and the minimal size of animal sample which was in contrast with the internationally recommended standards for a proper nutritional or toxicological assessment of a GM line. Controversial results concerning the dose-dependency between mortality or cancerogenesis of either the herbicide supplemented- or the maize NK603-diets were also pointed out.

[Apophis]

84. Yeah, and DDT is good for you too.

[hobbit709]

90. So does dying.

[AverageJoe90]

101. Color me skeptical, but....I'm not sure I can buy this. n/t