HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Yes, GMO's are great and ...

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:33 PM

Yes, GMO's are great and here is why...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141118141600.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141120113507.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24879-gene-therapy-restores-sight-in-people-with-eye-disease.html#.VPuwRvnF-yh

http://io9.com/scientists-create-genetically-modified-cells-that-prote-1537710472

Did you know that the bulk of insulin used to treat diabeties is made using GMO's? 70% of it is produced using a technique called Recombinant DNA.

The HepB vaccine is ALSO produced by use of GMO technology.

Scientists have also created GMO bacterias capable of cleaning up mercury pollution and one that is able to detect arsenic in water supplies.

GMO's do have positive effects, despite what some people may claim.

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/01/anti-gmo-advocates-try-to-scare-diabetics-off-life-saving-genetically-engineered-drug-treatment/

Some people portray GMO's as the bogeyman hiding in the closet - As the above cases can show, GMO's are not as 'evil' as people try to slant them to be.

133 replies, 9529 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 133 replies Author Time Post
Reply Yes, GMO's are great and here is why... (Original post)
Lancero Mar 2015 OP
peacebird Mar 2015 #1
Lancero Mar 2015 #2
peacebird Mar 2015 #5
NuclearDem Mar 2015 #7
Archae Mar 2015 #10
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #33
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #51
Orrex Mar 2015 #111
alarimer Mar 2015 #123
Lancero Mar 2015 #17
hopemountain Mar 2015 #56
HuckleB Mar 2015 #59
Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #105
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #113
HuckleB Mar 2015 #120
Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #126
roody Mar 2015 #77
HuckleB Mar 2015 #81
roody Mar 2015 #83
HuckleB Mar 2015 #88
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #114
Lancero Mar 2015 #118
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #109
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #110
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #108
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #115
HuckleB Mar 2015 #50
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #52
peacebird Mar 2015 #58
Bradical79 Mar 2015 #61
HuckleB Mar 2015 #62
sendero Mar 2015 #3
Lancero Mar 2015 #4
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #34
leftofcool Mar 2015 #6
Oktober Mar 2015 #13
nationalize the fed Mar 2015 #23
leftofcool Mar 2015 #28
LeftyMom Mar 2015 #22
leftofcool Mar 2015 #27
bhikkhu Mar 2015 #8
sakabatou Mar 2015 #15
silverweb Mar 2015 #19
luke102938 Mar 2015 #97
silverweb Mar 2015 #99
Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #106
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #116
Lancero Mar 2015 #24
Archae Mar 2015 #9
laundry_queen Mar 2015 #11
Lancero Mar 2015 #14
laundry_queen Mar 2015 #20
MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #12
Lancero Mar 2015 #16
MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #41
longship Mar 2015 #53
MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #63
longship Mar 2015 #98
MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #102
longship Mar 2015 #103
MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #107
longship Mar 2015 #112
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #117
proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #127
Orrex Mar 2015 #129
longship Mar 2015 #130
proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #84
longship Mar 2015 #86
HuckleB Mar 2015 #90
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #66
Lancero Mar 2015 #18
pnwmom Mar 2015 #21
99Forever Mar 2015 #25
HuckleB Mar 2015 #68
99Forever Mar 2015 #69
HuckleB Mar 2015 #71
99Forever Mar 2015 #72
HuckleB Mar 2015 #73
99Forever Mar 2015 #74
HuckleB Mar 2015 #75
99Forever Mar 2015 #79
HuckleB Mar 2015 #80
99Forever Mar 2015 #82
HuckleB Mar 2015 #91
djean111 Mar 2015 #26
GoneFishin Mar 2015 #29
tridim Mar 2015 #32
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #35
leftofcool Mar 2015 #36
tridim Mar 2015 #37
leftofcool Mar 2015 #38
tridim Mar 2015 #39
leftofcool Mar 2015 #40
HuckleB Mar 2015 #49
luke102938 Mar 2015 #100
no_hypocrisy Mar 2015 #30
HuckleB Mar 2015 #70
eridani Mar 2015 #31
HuckleB Mar 2015 #42
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #43
HuckleB Mar 2015 #44
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #45
HuckleB Mar 2015 #47
immoderate Mar 2015 #54
Lancero Mar 2015 #65
hunter Mar 2015 #46
KamaAina Mar 2015 #48
proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #57
HuckleB Mar 2015 #60
proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #76
HuckleB Mar 2015 #78
Lancero Mar 2015 #64
HuckleB Mar 2015 #67
HuckleB May 2015 #133
HuckleB Mar 2015 #55
roody Mar 2015 #85
HuckleB Mar 2015 #89
randr Mar 2015 #87
HuckleB Mar 2015 #92
randr Mar 2015 #94
HuckleB Mar 2015 #95
randr Mar 2015 #96
HuckleB Mar 2015 #119
randr Mar 2015 #121
HuckleB Mar 2015 #124
proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #93
proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #132
Rex Mar 2015 #101
DeSwiss Mar 2015 #104
Octafish Mar 2015 #131
alarimer Mar 2015 #122
Orrex Mar 2015 #128
proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #125

Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:38 PM

1. Fine, label them so I can know what I am serving my family. If they are so great let me chose them

Or not. In the mean time I will be glad to buy local organic vegetables and local grassfed meat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:40 PM

2. Will you also be glad to make use of medical technology...

That makes no use of GMO technology?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:59 PM

5. If GMOs are so marvelous you should be able to label them & sell them for higher$$$$, right?

Do so.
If you love them, trust them, think they are fabulous, then you can buy them.
I will keep buying local, organic.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:20 PM

7. The labeling movement shot themselves in the foot.

 

When you given "GMO" a level of charge equivalent to "we eat babies", getting any producer to agree to labeling is going to be an uphill battle, and one entirely of the movement's own making.

If you want to keep wasting money on "organic" foods that are substantively no different than other foods, go right ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:38 PM

10. Just last Wednesday I saw this firsthand.

"Organic" strawberries, near "non-organic" strawberries.

They were 3 TIMES the price.

"Organic" is far from a bunch of farming hippies signing "Inch By Inch" while carefully tending to tender seedlings.

"Organic" is a multi-billion $$$ industry, like any other farming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #10)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:17 AM

33. I don't know from 'tender seedlings'. Or hippies.

Sure, some organics take more time and effort, but not 3 times as much. I get a ton of strawberries out of my organic patch, and I barely pay attention to them. Heck, if I weeded them, I'd probably double or triple my yield, and not be even able to use them all. I think in those strawberries' case, they're just charging what the market will pay, not what it costs to grow them.

(Edit: Actually, I read your post too fast, and got your intent exactly backwards. So I largely agree with you. The vast majority of organic products out there are grown by the exact same megacorporations that grow the 'non-organics'.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #33)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:38 AM

51. tell it to bill nye.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #51)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 11:58 AM

111. Nye is not a trained geneticist or a food scientist, so the anti-GMO crowd dismisses him.

At the same time, Jane Goodall is not a trained geneticist or a food scientist, so the anti-GMO crowd lionizes her and takes her anti-GMO opinion as gospel truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:15 AM

123. Organic is a marketing label, nothing more.

It means nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:50 AM

17. I'm proud to support GMOs - Can you link to any studies that show my examples have negative impacts?

Or are my listed examples on of them 'beneficial' GMO's that most anti-gmoers hate to admit exists?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #17)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:45 AM

56. i hope the chemical companies

are paying you to post this deceptive propaganda.

have you heard? monsanto just lost their permit to plant gmo canola in the yucatan because the mexican government ran their own tests and discovered the gmo plant pollen is killing their bees.

yup. and this is not propaganda.

so folks - check your pharmaceuticals for gmo's now - not just your food. sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hopemountain (Reply #56)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:51 AM

59. The Mexican government stopped Monsanto from selling the seeds.

It has no such studies, however. Peer review matters. Politics are not science.

BTW, the shill gambit is ugly BS, and incredibly unethical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #59)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 07:18 AM

105. "Peer review" is meaningless

Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 07:54 AM - Edit history (1)

if the "peer" is a former Monsanto employee.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514002002

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #105)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 01:06 PM

113. very interesting.

 

We would like to comment on your answers (Hayes, 2014a) concerning the retraction of our study (Seralini et al., 2012 and Hayes, 2014b) by Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Our study investigated the long-term effects in rats of consumption of two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and its associated pesticide, Roundup, together and separately. The decision to retract the paper was reached a few months after the appointment of a former Monsanto employee as “editor for biotechnology”, a position created for him at FCT ( Robinson and Latham, 2013). In a recent editorial, Portier and colleagues express concern about the “dangerous erosion of the underpinnings of the peer-review process” in the case of our study ( Portier et al., 2014).

The criticisms from Monsanto and others focused on two aspects of our study: the relatively low number of rats used compared with the 50 per sex per group usual for carcinogenicity studies (OECD, 2009a) and the strain of rat used, the Sprague–Dawley. The critics alleged that the Sprague–Dawley rat was prone to tumours and that therefore the increased rate of tumorigenesis found in some of our treatment groups was purely random, even if this strain is commonly used in toxicology. Other answers to critics have been already published (Seralini et al., 2013).

These criticisms were subsequently adopted in your statement explaining the decision to retract our study. You wrote that the low number of rats and the strain selected meant that the conclusions on two aspects of our study – mortality and tumorigenesis – were “inconclusive” (Hayes, 2014a). In addition, you attested that our raw data were “not incorrect”, “there was no misconduct”, and that “Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data” ( Seralini et al., 2014).

We are sceptical about the rationale given to retract our paper, in light of FCT’s recent publication of another study (Zhang et al., 2014) which, like ours, investigated the potential chronic effects of consumption of a genetically modified (GM) crop. Unlike our study, however, it concluded that the GM crop tested, a transgenic insecticide-producing rice, was as safe and nutritious as conventional rice. Yet according to your criteria, it is at least as inconclusive as our study. Thus, it should not be published. Double standards are clearly used in evaluating Seralini et al., 2012, Hayes, 2014b and Zhang et al., 2014 in FCT.


FCT’s retraction of our paper, while not retracting studies – Zhang et al., 2014 and Hammond et al., 2004 – is an example of unscientific double standards. The decision to retract our paper appears to be results-driven, in that findings of safety in Zhang et al., 2014 and Hammond et al., 2004 have not been subjected to critical analysis and have been allowed to stand, whereas our findings of risk have been viewed with suspicion and forcibly retracted. As a result, economic interests have been given precedence over public health.

The use of double standards by the editors of scientific journals in evaluating studies on matters important to public health will damage the image and the value of science.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514002002

One of the reasons the public is increasingly suspicious of 'science' is the increased linkage with commerce, in multiple ways. And mostly due to the defunding of public-benefit aspects of government in favor of private-benefit ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #105)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 09:24 PM

120. Your link is baseless.

There are thousands of peer-reviewed studies from around the world showing that GMOs are safe.

It's time to stop pretending via cherry picked BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #120)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:50 PM

126. Please list these "thousands of peer-reviewed" studies from around the world

GMOs have many problems. Not the least of which, there are too many variables involved with human health to make a definitive claim that they are "safe".
For example, types and amounts of GMO foods ingested (including proportion of non-GMO foods), the health, gender, race and age of the test subjects, medications the test subjects may have been taking, the length of the studies, who was financing the studies, and how and how long the test subjects were monitored, among other considerations.

And despite all of these supposed "thousands of studies", many countries either outright ban or severely restrict GMO foods.

It's time to stop berating people for expressing valid concerns about crops that are designed first and foremost to reap profits and market share for their producers. Your condescending tone makes it sound like you and the other loudspeakers for GMOs have a financial interest in the matter.

I don't need or want GMO foods, for a number of reasons, and many other people around the world feel the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #17)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:32 PM

77. Full disclosure please. How do you

benefit financially from GMOs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roody (Reply #77)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:39 PM

81. Full disclosure please. How do you

benefit financially from mutation bred plants, organic companies, and supplement companies?

Yes, the shill gambit is nonsense. Grow up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #81)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:51 PM

83. Not at all.

I teach public school. The request for full disclosure is for Lancero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roody (Reply #83)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 06:28 PM

88. You're scaring me.

You teach kids, and you don't understand basic science and sarcasm?

Not good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roody (Reply #77)


Response to roody (Reply #77)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 08:08 PM

118. I don't.

Though considering that you've asked this question, I can easily see that you're going to disagree with any answer other then the one you want to hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 11:45 AM

109. Listen, feel free to feed your family whatever you want. My family doesn't want GMOs. We don't

buy them, we grow our own now. I am not pushing YOU to eat what you don't want to eat, why are YOU attempting to push other people to eat what they don't want to eat??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 11:49 AM

110. Well said. I don't get the attempt to FORCE people to eat what they don't want to eat.

They can feed their families all the genetically altered food they want, but they can't accept that many people, and a growing number every day, simply don't want their GMOs.

And their refusal to label them has contributed to even more people refusing to buy them.

You would their marketing depts would just make the right decision considering how that refusal is affecting their bottom line. And generally money trumps EVERYTHING.

So I am guessing they simply can't label them because if they did their sales would drop even further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 11:41 AM

108. I don't have diabetes. I don't need insulin. Label the food so we can decide whether to put

unneeded 'medication' into the bodies of our families. People do not generally take medication unless they need it. It is SHAMEFUL to suggest that the Government should feed people medication they don't need.

If it's all so great then just LABEL it. We are ADULTS not CHILDREN. Europeans know what they are eating. To deny Americans the absolute right to this information only makes them MORE suspicious.

Until that happens, no one in this home will be eating vegetables that have been genetically altered.

They are hiding something, we know that. So they need to stop the games, people are not stupid.

Now banned in 30 countries and counting, you would think those profiting from GMOs would get the message, 'the public is not stupid'.

You want to eat genetically altered food, feel free. We don't, so don't try to force your choices on other people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #108)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 01:14 PM

115. +100. They want to feed ordinary people crap. Only the rich should be able to choose.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:04 AM

50. Maybe you should learn about science, and get back to us.

It doesn't appear that you know how science works.

Bad propaganda sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #50)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:39 AM

52. bad propaganda sure does suck, especially the kind financed by the kochs.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #52)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 06:11 AM

58. Follow the money....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:05 AM

61. How would you have them labled?

The term GMO means nothing on its own good or bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #61)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:07 AM

62. Forget labeling GMOs! We Need "Mutation Bred" Labels NOW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:43 PM

3. We're talking about...

... GMO foods. Nice try at diversion, but unsuccessful to anyone with 2 brain cells.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:52 PM

4. Then call em GMF - Genetically Modified Foods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:22 AM

34. That's great, but a few people calling them that isn't going to change the dialogue.

Very large numbers of people have already decided on how they're going to talk about things, and they're not going to change just because the terminology is overly broad. So it's rather pointless to get in a snit about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:12 PM

6. I think I will just keep on buying locally grown veggies and fruits and meats from the Amish

Appreciate the info, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:43 AM

13. Yeah, that'll feed 7 billion people...

 

Glad you are taken care of though...

Really...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oktober (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:27 AM

23. GMO production in China

End of the line: GMO production in China halted
August 21, 2014

In a surprise U-turn, China’s Ministry of Agriculture has decided not to continue with a program which developed genetically-modified rice and corn. Some environmentalists say public concerns about GM crops played a key role in the decision.

On August 17, when these permits were up for renewal, the Ministry of Agriculture decided not to extend them. In 2009, the ministry's Biosafety Committee issued approval certificates to develop the two crops, rice and corn....

However, Huang Jikun also believes that public opinion was not the only reason why the project was shelved. He stated that China is reaching self-sufficiency in terms of rice production, so therefore there was no point in producing genetically modified versions. China exports very little rice as almost all of it is consumed within its domestic market. Huang also admitted, "rising public concerns [about the] safety of GM rice" likely also played a role.
http://rt.com/news/181860-gm-china-rice-stopped/

Golden rice scandal undermines China’s GM food push


China has sacked three officials for approving the testing of vitamin A-enriched Golden Rice, a genetically modified (GM) organism, on school children without appropriate consent, according to state news agency Xinhua.

The study, part of a Sino-US joint research project, was designed to test the efficacy of Golden Rice in alleviating vitamin A deficiency. However, it triggered a public outcry earlier this year when it was exposed that the informed-consent forms used in the trial did not mention that the rice was genetically modified.

Although the government was quick to initiate an internal investigation into the ethics of the trial, observers say it may not be enough to dispel popular distrust of GM technology in China.

Jiang Gaoming, a leading scientist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Botany, and a vocal opponent of the commercialisation of GM crops, condemned the golden rice trial...
https://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/5503-Golden-rice-scandal-undermines-China-s-GM-food-push/en

*************

The whole "feeding 7 billion people" thing is corporate marketing. Other countries know how to grow food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oktober (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 07:33 AM

28. The 7 billion people can eat all the GMO foods they want

I have no problem with using GMO's to feed people. They are not for me or my husband. I am in cancer remission, I am very careful of what I put in my system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:25 AM

22. The Amish are notorious for abusing their animals.

They run puppy mills and mistreat their horses. They train their animals the same way they do their kids- by hitting.

I'd suggest you do some investigating before you assume food from their farms is particularly wholesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 07:31 AM

27. Having lived among them for the last 8 years

I have yet to see any of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:20 PM

8. Most objections to GMO's are really objections to overuse of herbicides

One application of GMO technology is to create crops resistant to herbicides, so farmland can be treated liberally and yields increase because weeds are economically eradicated. Of course, the downside is herbicides in the watershed and everywhere else, which isn't good.

There are really fantastic uses for GMO technology, so I am a proponent, while also being opposed to overuse of herbicides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:48 AM

15. There's also the problem of cross pollination

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:57 AM

19. Exactly.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]The GMOs I worry about are the ones that enable food crops to absorb and withstand weed and bug-killing chemicals in enormous doses, all while spurring "super-weed" adaptation and killing off beneficial insects (i.e., bees and butterflies, just for starters) along with pests.

We already live in a toxic soup, and this isn't helping.

There are good and bad GMOs. Naming a few of the good ones doesn't eradicate the necessity to deal with the bad ones. Nor does it eradicate my demand and right to know what GMOs are in foods I may need to buy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #19)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 08:46 PM

97. What about GMO's that remove the need for chemicals in the first place?

 

Why would food corps want to pay for GMO's that take more expensive chemicals instead of GMO's that dont need them at all? One of the main drivers for GMO's has been the desire to replace chemicals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to luke102938 (Reply #97)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:06 PM

99. Please give examples.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]If there are GMOs that eliminate the need for herbicides, pesticides, and petrochemical fertilizers, I want their names so I can do my own research on them and make up my own mind.

I never take a corporation's word at face value for anything anymore. They have one mandate and one motive - profit - and many of them don't care how they get it.

GMO seed producers have lied about a number of their products, have forced farmers to sign insane and exclusive contracts, and have sued non-customers whose non-GMO crops have unwillingly become contaminated with GMOs. They've acted like secretive, litigious bastards.

I don't like their business practices and I don't like their contention that I have no right to know what I'm eating if I buy their products. This is another reason I oppose GMOs.

Let's have transparency not secrecy, real facts not marketing propaganda, and specific labeling on all products using GMOs - not declarations that people have no right or need to know.

Yes, there are good GMOs, but until there's accurate, specific labeling and transparency available to the public to be able to differentiate the good from the bad ones, I'm boycotting all GMO food products.

On edit: Just noticed your post count. Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #99)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 10:25 AM

106. Hear, hear!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #99)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 01:16 PM

116. +100

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 07:10 AM

24. Except that isn't a objection to GMO's.

It's a objection to GMCs/GMFs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:23 PM

9. One thing I've noticed, inevitably...

The anti-GMO people cite Natural News and Mike Adams, "Dr" Joe Mercola, or Jeffrey Smith and Steve Druker, graduates of the Maharishi Yogi's unaccredited diploma mill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:24 AM

11. Unlike the pro-gmo side

who would never link to blogs supported by Monsanto money, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #11)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:47 AM

14. I'm pro GMO - Can any of the medical sites be linked to Monsanto?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:07 AM

20. I said blogs, didn't I?

Not medical sites. Blogs. Nice try at diversion.

Anyhow - the point being is that it's disingenuous to attack someone for posting links to sites they see as having an agenda when it's been done by their side in the not-so-distant past. If you haven't done that, then good for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:40 AM

12. I don't recall those names...

I'm busy following the science and health outcomes here and abroad with modified food and immunological effects on cattle and human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:49 AM

16. So should GMO technology be banned for potental risks?

GMO - The term that most people use - stands for Genetically Modified Organism.

All of the above I listed are examples of such - Can you show that these GMO's are harmful?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 11:18 AM

41. You just made the point of this clearer...

First, GMO, as you suggest, DOES stand for, "genetically modified organisms". In the case of food production, in order for seed to survive poor soil and/or drought conditions, the crop's genetically modified structure affects the entire food chain, ending with the metabolic pathways of those digesting the food.

Second, because GMO's engineered this way for food production to result in larger yields of agri-business farming, HAVE NOT been proven safe.

The expectation is no different than introducing engineered pharmaceuticals, which must understood safety and efficacy trials before being introduced to the consuming public… just like pumping undisclosed chemicals a mile into shale should first be proven safe so that the back flow infiltrating into our water ways does not harm to those drinking it, and so flaring of gas into the atmosphere does not harm human life as a result of methane diffusion in the atmosphere.

So, where in this process does your logic follow that it FIRST be necessary to first show that it's HARMFUL?

Where do you come off with THAT logic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #41)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:04 AM

53. I have to in part, disagree.

First, genes do not survive the digestion process, and likely not even cooking. So there is no way in hell that they can get into ones metabolic pathways (whatever they means).

Second, people have been eating GMO food for far more years than you can imagine. There is zero evidence of harm to their health. ZERO!

Finally, nobody is saying that there are no hind side. That is why they are highly tested and highly regulated, as they should be. Your comparison of GMO to -- what is that? Fracking? -- is an absurd irrelevance.

The scare mongering and even outright lies being spewed about GMO doesn't do the anti-GMO crowd much good. Because the science unequivocally supports the safety of GMO food.

And no. I do not like Monsanto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #53)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:11 PM

63. Let me state once again what I said to evaluate your understanding...

… which was that a crop's genetically modified structure affects the entire food chain, ending with the metabolic pathways of those digesting the food. You interpreted that to mean that genes do not survive the digestion process. Uh, yes… That's sure true and, why WOULD they?

So, I'm not sure you read what I said for meaning.

So… what's your "ZERO" evidence about no evidence of harm, then?

And, what's this about "scare mongering and outright lies spewed about GMOs", then?

And, why get as defensive about Monsanto when it wasn't directed to you, then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #63)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 08:49 PM

98. No, I said genes do not survive digestion, which is a fact.

Yet you said
a crop's genetically modified structure affects the entire food chain, ending with the metabolic pathways of those digesting the food.

Now that is a bunch of gobbledygook to me.

How in the hell can the crop's genetically modified structures manage to get to those metabolic pathways when those structures cannot survive digestion? Huh?

How else can they get to the metabolic pathways if not through digestion?
That's right. They can't.

Eating GMO food is not unhealthy. And that's been known for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #98)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:48 PM

102. It's only a bunch of gobbledygook if you don't understand basic biology...

… and in fairness, when you don't understand biology, you tend to be distrustful of what falls outside your own common sense.

Look, metabolism isn't an easy subject. I say that as someone who has practiced as a registered and licensed respiratory therapist for 40 years. Having passed all my courses in biology, physiology, pathophysiology and managing patients on the respiratory end, this demands an understanding of metabolic pathways. IOW, how things break down from the time you ingest it from your mouth and it exits out the other end.

I found a rather simple map to what the literature discusses below. This is what's been scientifically studied for years, especially since large agribusiness started taking over the family farms in this country.




You didn't respond to my question regarding evidence of no harm associated with genetically modified organisms, so you might want to consider evidence showing some bad side effect of it. If you cannot "digest" the following information, I suggest you get some kids from the local high school biology class to sit down and explain the following. Then, maybe you'll start to make connections…

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood
Research from Canada (the first of its kind) has successfully identified the presence of pesticides -associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the Journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2011.

“Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known. Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.”
The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.) This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.


2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.
In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.

“Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA.”


This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells, but given the fact GMOs have been linked to cancer (later in this article) it is safe to assume it is indeed a possibility. The bottom line is that we don’t know, and this study demonstrates another cause for concern.

3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:

Intestinal permeability
Imbalanced gut bacteria
Immune activation and allergic response
Impaired digestion
Damage to the intestinal wall


The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.

4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
In November 2012, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University.

It was a very significant study, which obviously looks bad for the big bio tech companies like Monsanto, being the first and only long term study under controlled conditions examining the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto roundup herbicide.

This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.

It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study. This study was done by experts, and a correlation between GMOs and these tumors can’t be denied, something happened.


The multiple criticisms of the study have also been answered by the team of researchers that conducted the study.

GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use

5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
A study is published in the US National Library of Medicine (4) and will soon be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Several recent studies showed glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumors.

Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity.
Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.


6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects
A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects.

Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation – but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU Commission’s final review report

Here is a summary of the report:

Multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting serious health hazards posed by glyphosate
Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980′s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses
The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate
Another study published by the American Chemical Society, from the university of Buenos Aires, Argentina also showed that Glyphosate can cause abnormalities.


The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields

7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
When you ingest Glyphosate, you are in essence altering the chemistry of your body. It’s completely unnatural and the body doesn’t resonate with it. P450 (CYP) is the gene pathway disrupted when the body takes in Glyphosate. P450 creates enzymes that assist with the formation of molecules in cells, as well as breaking them down. CYP enzymes are abundant and have many important functions. They are responsible for detoxifying xenobiotics from the body, things like the various chemicals found in pesticides, drugs and carcinogens. Glyphosate inhibits the CYP enzymes. The CYP pathway is critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease.

8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine. It outlines how presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations.

To this day, Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain as well as the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases amongst entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, feces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers.

9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. (11) Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.

The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.
10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.


Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.

The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.

“The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models and parameters. The most common results is that GM and conventional sources include similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.”


Sources:

http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13

(1) https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

(2) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805

(3) http://rt.com/usa/gmo-gluten-sensitivity-trigger-343/

(4) http://responsibletechnology.org/media/images/content/Press_Release_Gluten_11_25.pdf
(5) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

(7) http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf

(8) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

(9) http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

(10) http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf

(11) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

(12) http://static.aboca.com/www.aboca.com/files/attach/news/risk_assessment_of_genetically_modified_crops_for_nutrition.pdf

(13) Reese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004;21:299–324

(14) Schubert D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat Biotechnol. 2002 20 969–969.

(15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #102)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 12:45 AM

103. I am only aware of one of these studies. (Updated.)

Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 08:37 AM - Edit history (1)

The rat tumor study.

Well, if that one is any indication of the others in your list, I am not impressed.

The Seralini rat study was utterly panned and eventually retracted.

An excerpt from the conclusions at the link (emphasis mine):
The Seralini study suffers from small sample size, lack of statistical analysis, ambiguous results, a questionable selection of rat strain which maximizes noise in the data, and dubious ethical treatment of the animals for possible dramatic effect. At this point anyone referencing this study as support for their position that GMO has health risks sacrifices their credibility.

It helps that the study has now officially been withdrawn, but references to the study in the anti-GMO literature are spread across the internet. The damage is done.

The study is similar in quality to the Carman pig stomach study – which was also worthless but was presented as evidence that GMO is bad. This study also took a random scatter of data and then hunted for any possible illusion of a signal in the noise.

Meanwhile, systematic reviews of the research show no evidence for any health risks from GMO foods.


Citing a retracted study does not seem to be a good idea for making a scientific point. I notice that you also cite the Carman pig study, (the same as mentioned in the conclusions as disputed?).

I've bookmarked the page to return when I have some extra time. But at this point, the studies seem to be cherry picked. When two of them are poor research -- one unethical!! -- it does not bode well for your argument.

Science has pretty stiff standards.
Peer review is a bitch, both before and after publishing.

Thanks for taking the time to post that.
Much appreciated.


On edit: just as I thought. Here's David Gorski's take down of the pig study:
Once more, bad science in the service of anti-GMO activism
No need to quote here. This one was also widely condemned.

I won't bother with the others. My sample of two has told me all I need to know.

BTW, it is not very ethical to cite a retracted study.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #103)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 11:34 AM

107. You won't bother? Apparently, you don't bother to read further than you want.

Not ETHICAL to cite a retracted study? That's interesting, since it actually is MORE ethical to show how a study was retracted against hundreds of scientists from around the world, due to correlation of rat data to human.

Meanwhile, you discard all human data you don't find compelling to support a science web site that has NO peer reviewed studies… just the ones to make peer reviewed studies look bad while having the audacity to call itself "science based medicine". What hogwash.

Reconsider what IS scientifically based and do yourself a favor reading outside of your own ideology. Posters who say "I won't bother" with actual research are nothing more than ideologues themselves.

If you don't know any better, then get someone to explain it to you instead of feigning knowledge on this.

Your state about "I won't bother" tells me all I need about "unethical". You just made the list on unethical. Being unimpressed by reading more than the articles you aim to de-bunk is actually a badge of honor to those of us who pursue peer reviewed studies directly affecting morbidity and mortality.

Good luck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #107)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 12:11 PM

112. I discard bogus science.

It is very typical of the anti-GMO crowd to cite these retracted and questioned studies. It is just like the anti-vaxxers and the Wakefield study. In spite of the fact the the science has been questioned as being bad, the anti-GMO crowd continue to cite them.

Plus, there is a huge amount of science supporting the safety of GMO, yet the anti-GMO crowd cherry pick only the questionable studies which support their claims. Whether deliberate or not -- I cannot look into their rationale -- this is very questionable.

That's not the way science works, my friend. When evaluating a scientific question, one must evaluate all the data and not select just that which supports ones position. A scientist must first, and above all, question their own hypotheses. I don't see that here, which to any scientist would be worrying.

I am educated in science (physics) but I am not an expert in GMO. So I have to look at this from the perspective of those scientists who are within that field. That's what scientists do. Another thing, if the evidence supported dangers of GMO, I would quickly discard my support for it. Alas, I do not see it. However, I must also consider the quality of the data in my evaluations. When a study has been retracted or questioned in the peer review process, that data should not be used to support an hypothesis.

Thank you again for the time and effort you put into this. I have enjoyed our dialog, in spite of our disagreement.

My best regards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #103)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 01:28 PM

117. once an editor with ties to monsanto was appointed.

 

We would like to comment on your answers (Hayes, 2014a) concerning the retraction of our study (Seralini et al., 2012 and Hayes, 2014b) by Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Our study investigated the long-term effects in rats of consumption of two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and its associated pesticide, Roundup, together and separately. The decision to retract the paper was reached a few months after the appointment of a former Monsanto employee as “editor for biotechnology”, a position created for him at FCT ( Robinson and Latham, 2013). In a recent editorial, Portier and colleagues express concern about the “dangerous erosion of the underpinnings of the peer-review process” in the case of our study ( Portier et al., 2014).

The criticisms from Monsanto and others focused on two aspects of our study: the relatively low number of rats used compared with the 50 per sex per group usual for carcinogenicity studies (OECD, 2009a) and the strain of rat used, the Sprague–Dawley. The critics alleged that the Sprague–Dawley rat was prone to tumours and that therefore the increased rate of tumorigenesis found in some of our treatment groups was purely random, even if this strain is commonly used in toxicology. Other answers to critics have been already published (Seralini et al., 2013).

These criticisms were subsequently adopted in your statement explaining the decision to retract our study. You wrote that the low number of rats and the strain selected meant that the conclusions on two aspects of our study – mortality and tumorigenesis – were “inconclusive” (Hayes, 2014a). In addition, you attested that our raw data were “not incorrect”, “there was no misconduct”, and that “Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data” ( Seralini et al., 2014).

We are sceptical about the rationale given to retract our paper, in light of FCT’s recent publication of another study (Zhang et al., 2014) which, like ours, investigated the potential chronic effects of consumption of a genetically modified (GM) crop. Unlike our study, however, it concluded that the GM crop tested, a transgenic insecticide-producing rice, was as safe and nutritious as conventional rice. Yet according to your criteria, it is at least as inconclusive as our study. Thus, it should not be published. Double standards are clearly used in evaluating Seralini et al., 2012, Hayes, 2014b and Zhang et al., 2014 in FCT.


FCT’s retraction of our paper, while not retracting studies – Zhang et al., 2014 and Hammond et al., 2004 – is an example of unscientific double standards. The decision to retract our paper appears to be results-driven, in that findings of safety in Zhang et al., 2014 and Hammond et al., 2004 have not been subjected to critical analysis and have been allowed to stand, whereas our findings of risk have been viewed with suspicion and forcibly retracted. As a result, economic interests have been given precedence over public health.

The use of double standards by the editors of scientific journals in evaluating studies on matters important to public health will damage the image and the value of science.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514002002

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #98)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 02:51 AM

127. "...genes do not survive the digestion process"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #127)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 06:42 AM

129. Read on:

The scientists took seven human volunteers who had their lower intestine removed in the past and now use colostomy bags. After being fed a meal of a burger containing GM soya and a milkshake, the researchers compared their stools with 12 people with normal stomachs. They found "to their surprise" that "a relatively large proportion of genetically modified DNA survived the passage through the small bowel". None was found in people who had complete stomachs. (emphasis mine)
and
The FSA said the research "showed in real-life conditions with human volunteers, no GM material survived the passage through the entire human digestive tract... the research concluded that the likelihood of functioning DNA being taken up by bacteria in the human or animal gut is extremely low".
In other words, genes do not survive the digestion proces in people with intact gastrointestinal tracts, so longship is correct..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #127)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 08:38 AM

130. From your link...

The FSA said the research "showed in real-life conditions with human volunteers, no GM material survived the passage through the entire human digestive tract... the research concluded that the likelihood of functioning DNA being taken up by bacteria in the human or animal gut is extremely low".


But I think that this new research should be looked at.

Regardless, I remain firmly in support of GMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #84)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:32 PM

86. Utter tosh!

I have to disagree with your evaluation of constitutes good science.

Let's just leave it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #86)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 06:32 PM

90. Science does not matter to that individual.

It never has, and it never will. Honesty is in the same boat with said individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:25 PM

66. at least they don't 'cite' websites funded by the kochs and run by the living marxism group...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:56 AM

18. Comon folks, if the ever stated claim of 'all GMO's are bad' is true...

You should have no issues at all finding research that shows my list of medtech GMO's to be harmful.

You say all GMO's are bad - Comon, defend them claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:18 AM

21. Some are, some aren't. The 1992 FDA (under the Rethugs) decreed that henceforth

all GMO's would be considered safe by default, and it would be up to people who were concerned about safety to prove that they weren't safe -- instead of the other way around. At the same time, the FDA allowed the GMO producers to limit researchers to those who were willing to sign contracts giving the producers veto power over publication.

What needs to happen is for the products to be labeled -- otherwise epidemiological studies cannot be done. And for research to be conducted freely by independent researchers -- not those either funded by or whose research is subject to approval by the GMO companies.

And new GMO's should be subject to individual safety studies, just like new drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 07:17 AM

25. If you are so effing proud of these products...

... label them as such.

If not, you don't even have the guts to say they are in there. So much for you, proud guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:39 PM

68. Why don't organic companies label food developed using mutation breeding?

Last edited Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I guess they're not very proud of their products. Hmm.

PS: http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/atomic_gardening_ultimate_frankenfoods-91836

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #68)


Response to 99Forever (Reply #69)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:57 PM

71. Awww, cute. You don't like it when your BS is shown for what it is.

You want to label seed development technologies, then label them all. You don't want to do that, then stop demonizing GMOs without justification. It's not ethical.

BTW, the shill gambit is just goofy. It shows that you have no argument to offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #71)


Response to 99Forever (Reply #72)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:10 PM

73. No one is insulting your intelligence.

You have no justification for your attacks. Your ugly propaganda has been shown for what it is. Apparently, Big Organic pays you well to keep repeating the "message." Too bad the message is corrupted.

See how this works?

PS: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit

PS2: http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #73)


Response to 99Forever (Reply #74)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:29 PM

75. The "link" you requested has nothing to do with reality.

It's just an attempt to distract from the actual matter at hand. You are the one who is insulting my intelligence. Your bad propaganda has been shown for what it is. You can pretend otherwise, but that doesn't affect the real world.

It's time to show some maturity, and acknowledge that you have no justification for your attacks. You can't justify labeling GMOs with science. You can't justify labeling one seed development technology but not all of them. You certainly can't justify labeling GMOs but not mutation bred plants.

You have nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #75)


Response to 99Forever (Reply #79)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:37 PM

80. No, you don't get it.

You haven't addressed anything. You're just acting like a petulant child who thinks that obsessing on a pretend "point" allows you to ignore everything else. That's classic anti-GMOer behavior. It's not ethical, however.

Goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #80)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:51 PM

82. ...

Ri-fucking-diculous.

Goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 07:25 AM

26. Is this the new meme? We are saying GMO instead of GMF, so, um, so what?

 

You know very well what we are talking about. A flurry of "GMO" applications besides food does not negate the food concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 07:40 AM

29. If GMO food is great why the need to trick people into eating it?

Anybody that would advocate tricking people into eating food that they don't want to eat is an unethical weasel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneFishin (Reply #29)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:00 AM

32. People already buy pounds of junk food they know is horrible for their family.

Do you really think they care about the GMO ingredients? I don't.

There is really no need to "trick" lazy consumers since they will already buy anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #32)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:26 AM

35. And every consumer is exactly like every other consumer.

Sorry, bad logic on your part.

Just because some consumers don't give a damn doesn't mean you treat every consumer like that lowest common denominator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #32)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:33 AM

36. That's not true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:34 AM

37. People don't buy junk food? M'kay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:39 AM

38. You said people are lazy consumers and will buy anything.

That is not true. Many many people watch what they eat, and check ingredients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #38)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:55 AM

39. So the dedicated junk food aisles in every grocery store don't exist?

Such a mystery.

I said "most" consumers, and I didn't say they buy 100% junk food but they do buy pounds every week, and they don't give a crap about the ingredients or they wouldn't buy it in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 09:01 AM

40. Re-read your post. you did NOT say most!

Of course there is junk food. But consumers are not for the most part lazy as you claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneFishin (Reply #29)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 11:48 PM

49. If mutation breeding food is great why the need to trick people into eating it?

Last edited Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Anybody that would advocate tricking people into eating food that they don't want to eat is an unethical weasel.

PS: http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/atomic_gardening_ultimate_frankenfoods-91836

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneFishin (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 09:10 PM

100. Do You think we should label foods "Mutant" and "Cloned" also?

 

Companys should not have to label foods to indulge mindless hysteria. The people that want these labels are the ones that want to trick people. It is a effort to trick people with scary wards into thinking GMO's are a health risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 07:47 AM

30. And the tonnage of pesticides needed to sustain them aren't great.

The combination of the GM cells and the pesticides kill bees, butterflies, and eventually humans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 07:56 AM

31. Good fucking grief! Not only are insulin-making bacteria living in vats separated from

--the environment, but they have lots of genes for making essential metabolites removed, so that if they do get loose, they'd die without the presence of a highly complex nutrient bath.

Quite a far cry from using GMO crops that have already resulted in superweeds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 02:56 PM

42. The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/gm-opponents-are-science-deniers

The anti-GMO crowd is unethical, and that's being very kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 03:04 PM

43. "Some people.."?

 

GMO Free regions are in green.



Austria: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810, MON 863 and T25
Notified in June 1999, initially under Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC, and subsequently maintained in February 2004 under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;

France: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
First notified in February 2008, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; and under EU Regulation 1829/2003

Germany
: in April 2009 the agriculture Minister, Ms. Aigner, announced a ban on cultivation and sale of MON 810

Greece: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
Application lodged in April 2005 under Article 18 of Directive 2002/53/EC, and subsequently in January 2006 extended/maintained the measure under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;

Hungary
: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
Notified in September 2006, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;
Ban on cultivation and commercial use of potato Amflora
Notified in June 2010

Italy: (Updated in Aug 2014)
General ban on cultivation of GE corn MON810
Notified by inter-ministerial decree (Health-Environment-Agriculture Ministers) entered into force in August 2013. This ban will stay in place till will be taken - at European level -steps connected to art. 54, comma 3 regulament 178/2002 (CE) and anyway not more than 18 months.

Luxembourg
: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
Notified in March 2009, under Directive 2001/18/EC
Ban on cultivation and commercial use of potato Amflora
Notified in June 2010

Poland: (Updated in July 2014)
Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.
Application lodged in January 2013 under Article 16 of Directive 2002/53/EC (The EU’s Seeds Directive). The ban under the Seeds Directive affects all MON 810 varieties.
Ban on cultivation of BASF’s potato Amflora. Application lodged in January 2013 under Article 16 of Directive 2002/53/EC (The EU’s Seeds Directive).

Romania: Ban on cultivation of MON 810 maize announced by Environment minister Korodi on 27 March 2008.
The Romanian government has indicated that it intends to install the ban on the same legal grounds as France: under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; and under EU Regulation 1829/2003. Enactment of the ban is expected in April 2008.

Switzerland: (Updated in July 2014)
In 2005, the Swiss voted by referendum a 5-year moratorium against the commercial cultivation of GM crops and animals. The Swiss government decided to extend this moratorium till 2013.
In 2012 the Swiss Parliament voted for a second extention of the moratorium until December 2017.

Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms (The Library of Congress)

The report discusses the legislation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically modified (GM) plants and foods in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, England and Wales, France,Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, and the United States. The European Union andInternational Protocols. This report summarizes enacted laws on the cultivation, and sale of GMOs, as well as public opinion on GM products.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HuckleB (Reply #44)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 03:10 PM

45. Neither is agrobusiness. Apparently, Europe is out of scientists that agree with you.

 

And, if it is so safe and beneficial why not advertise GM foods on the labels?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #45)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 05:04 PM

47. Europe has plenty of scientists and science that show GMOs are safe.

No seed development technology is labeled. There is no science-based justification for doing so.

Why don't you ask organic producers to label their foods as deriving from mutation breeding?

And if non-GMO is so good, why does it have to market itself by unjustly demonizing GMO plants?

PS:

A Decade of EU Funded Research Shows GMOs To Be Safe
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

German Meta-Analysis Shows GMO Increase Yield And Reduce Pesticide Use
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Scientists urge change to Europe's GMO regulation
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/03/14/science-gm-idINDEEA2D00820140314

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #47)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:15 AM

54. Have you found a paper yet that says GMOs are safe?

 

You didn't read those papers that you dump on people.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #43)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:19 PM

65. Funny that none of the listed countries ban GMO medtech

Which is what this topic is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 03:49 PM

46. Some are, some are not.

Some of the mushrooms in the forest are good to eat, and some will kill you.

Genes for herbicide resistance or a single poorly moderated pesticides are a bad idea in the long run.

Natural insect and fungicide resistance in plants is a much more sophisticated process then "let's just throw these genes in there." Most naturally resistant plants will increase production of a wide range of natural pesticides when they or their neighbors are attacked, and decrease them when few pests are around. This reduces the chance of resistant pests evolving.

After bee and butterfly populations are destroyed by your GMO crop, sooner or later you get a pest that eats your GMO crop with impunity, and furthermore you've killed off all that pest's less damaging competition, and maybe a few of its predators too.

It works in a similar way with GMO herbicide resistant crops. You end up with weeds that are as resistant to herbicides as your GMO crop is.

Every GMO crop has to be thoroughly examined on a case-by-case basis to determine if the modification will be beneficial or detrimental in the long run.

I think most GMO organisms (and even most patented organisms overall) are not beneficial in the long run, for the simple reason that selling them reduces the overall genetic diversity of traditional crops. There are genes in "heritage" crops that might not be around when we need them if most farmers are growing patent crops; genes that could be very useful someday as the climate become warmer and less stable and new pests evolve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2015, 05:05 PM

48. "The HepB vaccine is ALSO produced by use of GMO technology. "

 

That proves it! GMOs cause teh autism!! WHARGARBLE!!!11!1!!11!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #48)


Response to KamaAina (Reply #48)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:04 AM

60. LOL!

Funny post! And you brought out an anti-vaccine response to boot!

Nicely done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #60)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:32 PM

76. Safety and efficacy are the topics.

Interesting pair of reports starting 2/24/15 by Dinara Urazova (seen on Twitter): http://en.tengrinews.kz/health
Ignore or investigate? WHO investigates? Yup, it's a pun, though there's nothing funny about it. Safety and efficacy are the topics.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #76)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:35 PM

78. You offer nothing but anti-vaccine con games.

You have no credibility with anyone, and you have already pushed one of worst anti-vaccine con artists on this page.

It's time for you to show some level of ethics, and stand down.

No one is going to waste time on your nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #48)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:17 PM

64. Figured someone would get a kick out of that.

What's interesting is that with how medical technology is advancing, GMO's are likely to play a even larger role in future vaccines.

So it's entirely possible that todays anti-gmo crowd will be tomorrows antivaxxer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #64)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:38 PM

67. There is a great deal of overlap already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Reply #64)

Sat May 30, 2015, 12:30 PM

133. Oh, anti-GMO tends to go hand in hand with anti-vax, chemtrails, and the whole shebang.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 01:20 AM

55. Someone is kicking this thread, and it can only be one of two people.

Since I can't see the individual in question.

Awesome sauce.

Anyway, here's some good reading:

GMO Crops Help Fight Hunger
https://fstjournal.org/festures/29-1/gm-crops

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 02:08 PM

85. They are so great!

I wish they were labelled at the grocery store so that I could choose them over the not GMO food!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roody (Reply #85)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 06:30 PM

89. Why don't you want all seed development technologies labeled?

Then you can pick your favorite, for no good reason. It's so cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 03:16 PM

87. And all that extra roundup in our food means weeds will not grow in our intestines.

The majority of GMO technology is directed at making plants immune to massive applications of weed killers. The technology has very little to do with growing more food. The suggestion that we can grow more is due to the lack of weeds in the vast sterile expanse of our once fertile farmlands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #87)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 06:57 PM

92. So GMOs don't lead to increased yields?

Are you sure about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #92)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 07:08 PM

94. Organically maintained soils produce the highest yields of healthy food

Increases in crops grown industrially show lower traces of essential minerals and have the added infusion of herbicides.
Higher crop yield does not equate to more or better nourishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #94)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 07:11 PM

95. Can you support those claims with a clear consensus of peer-reviewed science?

I'll just wait to find out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #95)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 07:20 PM

96. Do you mean 'scientists' employed by Monsanto etc?

Again the risk of GMO food stuffs is the increase use of herbicides. That is the main reason they modify the seed. An increase in yield is merely circumstantial.
An enormous amount of information is available regarding the ill affects of herbicides on humans, insects, and animals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #96)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 09:23 PM

119. So you admit that you have no basis for your claims.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuckleB (Reply #119)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:05 AM

121. My claim is that GMO's are developed to allow an increased amount of

Monsanto produced herbicides to be used on plants. As a farmer I have seen the promotional materials from GMO suppliers that use this fact as a sales tool.
You are hiding behind a smoke screen much like the lobby that claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #121)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:07 AM

124. Your argument is false, and you are already backing away from your previous claims.

You know your claims are wrong. GMOs have led to the use of much safer herbicides than in the past. Somehow you find that to be a bad thing.

Guess what? It's a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 07:01 PM

93. I oppose GMO ingredients in food, I support the manufacture of novel GMO drugs unavailable otherwise

Genetic modifications of human somatic cells?
Genetic modifications of human reproductive cells? I had no idea this debate was happening.

http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111

Don’t edit the human germ line

Edward Lanphier, Fyodor Urnov, Sarah Ehlen Haecker, Michael Werner& Joanna Smolenski
12 March 2015


Heritable human genetic modifications pose serious risks, and the therapeutic benefits are tenuous, warn Edward Lanphier, Fyodor Urnov and colleagues.

It is thought that studies involving the use of genome-editing tools to modify the DNA of human embryos will be published shortly1.

There are grave concerns regarding the ethical and safety implications of this research. There is also fear of the negative impact it could have on important work involving the use of genome-editing techniques in somatic (non-reproductive) cells.

We are all involved in this latter area of work. One of us (F.U.) helped to develop the first genome-editing technology, zinc-finger nucleases2 (ZFNs), and is now senior scientist at the company developing them, Sangamo BioSciences of Richmond, California. The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM; in which E.L., M.W. and S.E.H. are involved), is an international organization that represents more than 200 life-sciences companies, research institutions, non-profit organizations, patient-advocacy groups and investors focused on developing and commercializing therapeutics, including those involving genome editing.

Genome-editing technologies may offer a powerful approach to treat many human diseases, including HIV/AIDS, haemophilia, sickle-cell anaemia and several forms of cancer3. All techniques currently in various stages of clinical development focus on modifying the genetic material of somatic cells, such as T cells (a type of white blood cell). These are not designed to affect sperm or eggs.

In our view, genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable. Such research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications. We are concerned that a public outcry about such an ethical breach could hinder a promising area of therapeutic development, namely making genetic changes that cannot be inherited.

<>

Nature 519, 410–411 (26 March 2015) doi:10.1038/519410a

Link from:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/scientists-call-for-moratorium-on-human-gene-editing-experim

Scientists Call For Moratorium On Human Genetic Experiments

Prominent scientists have called for a temporary halt on research aimed at editing the DNA of human embryos, fearing a real-life Gattaca. “Human beings are not lab rats,” said one.

posted on March 12, 2015, at 2:32 p.m.

by Dan Vergano
BuzzFeed News Reporter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:12 PM

101. The genetically modified food in your tummy is making you say those things.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 02:59 AM

104. What utter BULLSHIT.

 

- The point is no one was asked if they'd mind eating these Genetically Mangled Organisms. If you wish to take part in their experiment, then fine, you go right ahead.

But I refuse to participate. And no one has the right to make me. Capice?

[center]

MONSANTO GMO's NEVER MET MINIMUM SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROTOCOL STANDARDS

"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]

Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.


America's premier POISON MAKERS.


[/center]

Towns poisoned by Monsanto

[center]





Séralini, et. al. - RoundUp-GMO Study Re-Published



















[/center]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #104)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 08:43 AM

131. + uh Brazillion. Me, I like how the seeds don't reproduce.

So the worlds' farmers gotta come back to buy more from...Monsanto.

Great business model. Useful for weeding out the herd, "should that become necessary," too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:14 AM

122. Golden rice has the potential for ending many cases of blindness.

Due to Vitamin A deficiency.

Yes, it's not just right-wingers who are anti-science.

Too many purveyors of woo on the left as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #122)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 06:36 AM

128. But Vandana Shiva sez it's bad

Therefore, we should let those people go blind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lancero (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:36 PM

125. (Not directed toward KA) I saw the top link on Twitter the other night.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
2010 paper on Hep B vaccine studying period between 1997-2002 - sobering

http://vec.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/thimerosal.html
Hep B vaccine updates

http://www.iansvoice.org
Personal account of severe acute Hep B adverse reaction in 2007. WARNING: Gruesome photos guaranteed to end glib quips permanently. No it wasn't autism, it was a vaccine injury.

And... relevant 2014 essay by physician Kelly Brogan: http://kellybroganmd.com/article/hepatitis-b-vaccine-for-your-newborn/
MIT/Cornell: http://kellybroganmd.com/credentials/#training-and-education

Too searing, apologies.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread