Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Yes, GMO's are great and here is why... [View all]longship
(40,416 posts)103. I am only aware of one of these studies. (Updated.)
Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 09:37 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It helps that the study has now officially been withdrawn, but references to the study in the anti-GMO literature are spread across the internet.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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
133 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Fine, label them so I can know what I am serving my family. If they are so great let me chose them
peacebird
Mar 2015
#1
If GMOs are so marvelous you should be able to label them & sell them for higher$$$$, right?
peacebird
Mar 2015
#5
Nye is not a trained geneticist or a food scientist, so the anti-GMO crowd dismisses him.
Orrex
Mar 2015
#111
I'm proud to support GMOs - Can you link to any studies that show my examples have negative impacts?
Lancero
Mar 2015
#17
Please list these "thousands of peer-reviewed" studies from around the world
Art_from_Ark
Mar 2015
#126
Listen, feel free to feed your family whatever you want. My family doesn't want GMOs. We don't
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#109
Well said. I don't get the attempt to FORCE people to eat what they don't want to eat.
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#110
I don't have diabetes. I don't need insulin. Label the food so we can decide whether to put
sabrina 1
Mar 2015
#108
+100. They want to feed ordinary people crap. Only the rich should be able to choose.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#115
That's great, but a few people calling them that isn't going to change the dialogue.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Mar 2015
#34
I think I will just keep on buying locally grown veggies and fruits and meats from the Amish
leftofcool
Mar 2015
#6
It's only a bunch of gobbledygook if you don't understand basic biology...
MrMickeysMom
Mar 2015
#102
You won't bother? Apparently, you don't bother to read further than you want.
MrMickeysMom
Mar 2015
#107
at least they don't 'cite' websites funded by the kochs and run by the living marxism group...
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#66
If mutation breeding food is great why the need to trick people into eating it?
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#49
Good fucking grief! Not only are insulin-making bacteria living in vats separated from
eridani
Mar 2015
#31
Neither is agrobusiness. Apparently, Europe is out of scientists that agree with you.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2015
#45
Oh, anti-GMO tends to go hand in hand with anti-vax, chemtrails, and the whole shebang.
HuckleB
May 2015
#133
And all that extra roundup in our food means weeds will not grow in our intestines.
randr
Mar 2015
#87
Your argument is false, and you are already backing away from your previous claims.
HuckleB
Mar 2015
#124
I oppose GMO ingredients in food, I support the manufacture of novel GMO drugs unavailable otherwise
proverbialwisdom
Mar 2015
#93
(Not directed toward KA) I saw the top link on Twitter the other night.
proverbialwisdom
Mar 2015
#125