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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: No more GMO: Monsanto drops bid to approve new crops in Europe [View all]DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)11. K&R
[center][/center]
GMO's FROM MONSANTO HAVE NEVER MET MINIMUM SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROTOCOLS AND 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.
"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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
75 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
Forget Seralini; try 118 articles on glyphosate from 'US National Library of Medicine' publications.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#41
Fraudulent science, how about sick kids? These findings give support to The Precautionary Principle
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#33
"Because while our children may only represent 30% of the population, they are 100% of our future."
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#42
Pusztai? Embarrassing. That the antis have nothing but bad science should tell you something
roseBudd
Jul 2013
#57
ABSOLUTELY FALSE -"Peer review tells us that...Pusztai performed shoddy research."
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#65
Ironic you'd mention risk factors. Here's a 2009 Press Release from Breast Cancer Action about rBGH.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#49
Courtesy Michael Hansen, PhD Senior Scientist, Consumer Reports: Monsanto, GM foods & Health Risks.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#46
FALSE - "The vast majority of scientists agree that biotech food is safe. " The field is evolving.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#64
I imagine it's easier to trivialize and minimize the person than it is to take valid exception
LanternWaste
Jul 2013
#53
Oh, it's just a single case history, but wait for the GMO labeling laws to be implemented.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#74
FYI, claims of altruistic and humanitarian motives are explored in investigative reports here.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#47
IAASTD examined global agriculture on scale comparable to Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#48
Al Gore: The challenges raised by human biotechnologies on par with those of global climate change.
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2013
#50