Monsanto Protection Act Sneaks Through Senate

Latest buzz on bee decline:
Maybe it's pesticides

Help Stop the Monsanto Protection Act

Monsanto Sucks, I approve this message...

Prop 37 CA RIght to Know! Label GMOs!

Soros Monsanto Connection
Monsanto crap
Food Insecurity: Monsanto
Monsanto's Love Child Cliarance
Monsanto 200,000 Indian Farmer Suicides

Monsanto Sucks.com
Monsanto Watch
Millions Against Monsanto



posted from another board.

Adding Section 735 to the continuing resolution (H.R. 933) was very clever by the Monsanto Legislators. Since no President has a line item veto they knew it would be the perfect bill to attach this horrible rider to.
Our elected officials should be held accountable.

AND, that the discussion on "line item veto" be ignited again.
I urge you to not lose heart, Monsanto will be defeated, it will just take time.

Please support any effort in your state to label GMO.... 14 states now have legislation pending:

Alaska – HJR.5 Opposes AquaBounty’s petition to commercialize GE salmon, requests further examination of GE salmon, and proposes a label of “genetically modified” to accompany the fish if approved. Introduced January 28, 2013 by Representatives Tarr, Kawasaki, Austerman, Reinbold, Tuck, and Kerttula.

Arizona – SB.1180 Considers any food entirely or partially produced by genetic engineering without the label “genetically engineered” or implies that the food is naturally grown or all natural as misbranding. Introduced January 24, 2013 by Senator Ableser.

Colorado – HB.1192 The bill defines “genetically engineered” and requires a person selling, distributing, or offering for sale food in Colorado that he or she is aware contains genetically engineered material or was produced with genetically engineered material to label the food as follows: “This product contains genetically engineered material or was produced with genetically engineered material”. The bill exempts certain foods from the labeling requirement. Introduced January 31, 2013 by Representative Labuda.

Hawaii – There are seven (7) bills:
HB.174 Requires specific labeling for any food or raw agricultural commodity sold in Hawaii that contains or was produced with a genetically engineered material. Introduced January 18, 2013 by Representatives Carroll, Lowen, Mizuno, Evans, and Souki.

HB.348 Requires genetically engineered food products that are sold, offered for sale, or distributed in this State to be labeled as such, with certain exceptions. Introduced January 22, 2013 by Representatives Lowen and C. Lee.

HB.733/SB.1290 Requires the labeling of genetically engineered whole food sold in Hawaii. Introduced January 24, 2013 by Representatives Wooley, Hanohano, Ing, Lowen, Belatti, Brower, C. Lee, Luke, McKelvey, Morikawa, and Nishimoto and Senators Gabbard, English, Green, Ruderman, Shimabukuro, Chun Oakland, and L. Thielen.

SB.468 Establishes labeling requirements for any food or raw agricultural commodity sold in Hawaii that contains a genetically engineered material or was produced with a genetically engineered material. Introduced January 18, 2013 by Senators English, Chun Oakland, Gabbard, Keith-Agaran, Ruderman, Shimabukuro, Solomon, Galuteria, Green, Kahele, and L. Thielen.

SB.615 Prohibits the sale of genetically engineered fish or genetically engineered fish products in Hawaii unless appropriately labeled as genetically engineered or produced or partially produced with genetic engineering. Introduced January 18, 2013 by Senators Gabbard, Ruderman, Chun Oakland, Shimabukuro, and L. Thielen.
SB.934 Requires genetically engineered food products that are sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Hawaii to be labeled as such, with certain exceptions, and establishes penalties for violations. Introduced January 24, 2013 by Senators Green, Chun Oakland, Ruderman, and Shimabukuro.

SB.1329 Requires labeling of foods that have been genetically engineered, provides a penalty for violations, and authorizes private civil enforcement of the Act. Introduced January 24, 2013 by Senator Gabbard.

Indiana –HB.1196 Provides that any food that is offered for retail sale is misbranded if it is not disclosed that the food is or may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering and that a food that is genetically engineered or a processed food may not state or imply that the food is natural. Introduced January 10, 2013 by Representatives Forestal and Shackelford.

Minnesota – Two bills were submitted in February 2013. Here is what I could get on them from NaturalNews: H.F. 850 and S.F. 821 would require that all food products containing GM ingredients bear the words "Produced with Genetic Engineering." H.F. 850 was introduced by Representative Karen Clark; and S.F. 821 by Senator John Marty.

Missouri – There are two (2) bills:
HB.245 Requires all food and food products sold in Missouri that are or contain genetically modified products to be labeled indicating that the food is or contains genetically modified products. Introduced January 30, 2013 by Representatives Ellington, Webb, Montecillo, Hummel, Newman, Rizzo, Ellinger, Gardner, Dunn, LaFaver, and Walton Gray.

SB.155 This act requires all genetically modified meat and fish that is raised and sold in Missouri to be identified on its label as genetically modified. Introduced January 16, 2013 by Senator Nasheed.

New Hampshire – HB.660 Requires the labeling of genetically engineered foods and agricultural commodities. Introduced January 3, 2013 by Representatives Mann, Massimilla, Perry, Smith, and Raymond.
New Jersey – There are two (2) bills:
AB.2955/SB.1367 Requires labeling of foods containing genetically modified material. Introduced May 21, 2012 by Representatives Wolfe, Kean, and Caride and February 6, 2012 by Senators Singer, Vitale, A.R.Bucco, Cardinale, Lesniak, Turner and Bateman.

AB.3192 Requires labeling of all foods containing genetically modified material. Introduced July 30, 2012 by Representatives Stender and Eustace.

New York – AB.3525 Provides for the labeling of food or food products that contain a genetically modified material or that are produced with a genetically modified material, imposes penalties for false labels and misbranding, and sets forth exemptions. Introduced January 28, 2013 by Representative Rosenthal and Peoples-Stokes.

Oregon – Two (2) Bills:
HB.2175 Makes foods that contain or are produced using genetically engineered material subject to labeling requirements and declares that such foods that do not conform with labeling requirements to be misbranded. Introduced January 13, 2013 by Representative Boone.

HB.2532 Makes foods that contain or are produced using genetically engineered material subject to labeling requirements. Introduced January 13, 2013 by Representatives Holvey, Buckley, and Keny-Guyer.

Tennessee – SB.894 Provides for the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Introduced February 4, 2013 by Senator Nicely.

Vermont – HB.112 Provides for the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Introduced January 2013 by Representatives Webb, Bartholomew, Zagar, Partridge, McCullough, Bissonnette, Burke, Buxton, Carr, Cheney, Christie, Cross, Dakin, Deen, Devereux, Donahue, Northfield, Donovan, Ellis, Emmons, Frank, French, Head, Hooper, Keenan, Krowinski, Lanpher, Lenes, Marek, Martin, Martin, Masland, McCarthy, McCormack, Miller, Mrowicki, Nuovo, Pearson, Peltz, Rachelson, Ram, Sharpe, Spengler, Stevens, Stuart, Till, Toleno, Townsend, Waite-Simpson, Wizowaty, and Woodward.

Washington – An Initiative and a Bill:
Initiative I-522, the People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.

SB.5073 Provides for the labeling of genetically engineered foods and prescribes penalties for violation. Introduced January 17, 2013 by Senators Chase, Kline, Keiser, Rolfes, and Hasegawa.

Source for List

 

JoanofSnarc,

Are you aware of the fact that the Seralini paper was held to a higher standard than the Monsnato study was? So why are you not also condemning the Monsanto study?

Also I would prefer that you present an independent, peer-reviewed evaluation of both the Seralini paper and the Monsanto information and data that did not involve the EFSA. I have to admit to chuckling over your offering of their criticism. Apparently you were unaware that:

In 2012 the European Court of
Auditors issued its report on the con[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+fb]fl[/FONT]icts
of interest policies at four European agencies,
EFSA among them. The Court concluded
that, while EFSA[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+20]’[/FONT]s policies were
among the most advanced, none of the
agencies [FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+20]‘[/FONT]adequately[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+20]’ [/FONT]managed con[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+fb]fl[/FONT]icts of
interest.

EFSA experts involved in assessing the
risks of GM foods have attracted criticism
for their closeness to industry. In 2010,
12 out of 21 experts on the geneticallymodi[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+fb]fi[/FONT]ed
organism (GMO) Panel that issued a scienti[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+fb]fi[/FONT]c
opinion that was key to the approval of a GM
potato had con[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+fb]fl[/FONT]ictsof interest as de[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+fb]fi[/FONT]ned by the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD).
　
The Séralini affair was the latest in a long
series of controversies over EFSA[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+20]’[/FONT]s closeness
to industry. An earlier dispute involved the
long-standing relationship of the chair of
EFSA[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+20]’[/FONT]s management board, Diána Bánáti,
with the industry-funded International Life
Sciences Institute (ILSI). ILSI is funded by the
same agribusiness, food and biotechnology
companies whose products EFSA assesses for safety.
　
EFSA was accused by scienti[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+fb]fi[/FONT]c organisations
and individual scientists of applying
double standards to studies on GM foods.
They said that EFSA rejected Séralini[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+20]’[/FONT]s
[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+fb]fi[/FONT]ndings yet accepted less rigorously
designed studies from industry as proof of
safety of GM foods.

Even the design of EFSA's GMO risk assessment
standards was in[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+fb]fl[/FONT]uenced by an
ILSI task force headed by a Monsanto
employee. They are based on the concept
of comparative assessment, a rewording of
the controversial concept of [FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+20]‘[/FONT]substantial
equivalence[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+20]’[/FONT]. Substantial equivalence
assumes that GM crops are equivalent to
non-GM crops and do not require rigorous
safety assessment. Currently, in the EU,
substantial equivalence must be measured, but
the analysis is con[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+fb]fi[/FONT]ned to known basic components
of the GM food such as protein and fats.
Unexpected changes such as novel toxins
or allergens are likely to be missed.
　
In 2012, EFSA's scientific committee published an
opinion recommending the of the threshold of
toxicological concern in the risk assessment of chemicals
in food. The opinion stated that an exposure level
of 0.15 μg per person per day is acceptable for genotoxic
substances (substances that damage DNA, possibly giving
rise to cancer and birth defects). EFSA[FONT=AdvTTb20e5d60+20]’[/FONT]s opinion
contradicted its own previous opinion which stated that it is
current practice to assume that there is no safe level of
exposure for genotoxic substances. It also undermined the
pesticide Regulation, which forbids approval of genotoxins.

The impartiality of the 2012 opinion is
in doubt, since 10 of the 13 members of
the EFSA working group on the threshold
of toxicological concern had a publishing
history favouring its use or had previously
advocated its use. Eight had formal links
with ILSI.
_______________________________

Read all about it, plus lots more; all sourced and everything, here:

http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Conflicts-of-interest-at-the-EFSA-erode-public-confidence.pdf

________________________________
　
And you thought Greenpeace was bad?? Would you like to rethink your decision to use EFSA in your attempt to trash the Seralini paper?

 

After the publication of the study by Gilles-Eric Seralini, the first study carried out on rats fed NK603 maize over their whole lifespan, which shows that the toxicity of these GMOs on rats, many criticisms and questions have arisen about the conditions in which the study was carried out and its credibility. Dr Joel Spiroux, co-author and assistant director of the study, and president of Criigen (Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) responds.

First criticism: 200 rats is too small a sample for a solid study ...

- The sample of 200 rats, 20 rats per group, is the same number of rats used [GMW note: analysed] by Monsanto in its 3-month study. In contrast, we studied many more toxicological endpoints. An experiment with more rats would have cost more money. The study already cost 3.2 million Euro.

The type of rats used, Sprague-Dawley, is known to easily develop tumours ...

- Yes, but this type of rat is used the world over for toxicological research. These rats have the advantage of being stable in biological and physical levels. They all pretty much the same profile, the same weight ... These are the rats used from the beginning in the research on GMOs by the firms that produce them, including by Monsanto. And the facts are there: those that were fed GM corn, with or without Roundup, develop more diseases. And much faster.

Looking closely, male rats fed GM corn does not generally develop more tumours than the controls ...

- One must look at the speed which which tumours are triggered. In all three treatment groups of rats, tumours or diseases of the kidneys and liver begin in the 4th month and explode in the 11th and 12th months. Which corresponds to the age of 35 to 40 years in a human. In the control group, tumours occurred mostly at the end of life, in the 23rd and 24th months, which seems to be normal in these rats.

Scientists point to the lack of information on the exact composition of the diet on which rats were fed ...

- These are standard biscuits/chow, the same again as those used by the producers of GMOs in their studies. The only difference is that we have precisely measured the concentration of GM maize: 11% for the first group, 22% for the second and 33% for the third.

The amount of GMO consumed by the rats is more than is consumed by humans...

- Think again. The doses of NK603 maize are comparable to what humans eat over a lifetime in America, where GMOs are sold freely, unlabelled, untraceable. This prevents them being identified as a cause of disease and opens the door to denial. This is why we hear for example that Americans have been eating GMOs for 15 years and are not sick.

The magazine chosen to publish the study, "Food and Chemical Toxicology," is not the most prestigious in the United States.

- It is far from being secondary: it is an internationally known scientific journal. Publications are subject to peer review, and the peer reviewers express contradictory opinions. And it's the same journal in which Monsanto and other manufacturers publish their counter-studies.

We also hear that Gilles-Eric Seralini is committedly anti-GM, that he got the results he wanted.

- Absolutely not. Gilles-Eric Seralini the Criigen (Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) and researchers in his lab at the University of Caen are also working on genetically modified organisms, because it gives them access to the knowledge of life. They have nothing against GMOs for the manufacture of drugs. Insulin, for example, is produced from GMOs. This does not prevent me from prescribing it to my patients with diabetes. One can recognize these medicines by the presence on the label of the term "recombinant protein". So yes to GMOs in the pharmaceutical laboratory. However, Gilles-Eric Seralini and we are against agricultural GMOs, because they are inadequately labelled and their long-term toxicity is poorly studied.

You are not oncologists, what do you know about tumours?

- No, we are not oncologists and have never said otherwise. This is a toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study, which follows other protocols. Moreover, we have nowhere stated that tumours were cancerous. These are fibro-adenomas and kerato-acanthomas [?chirato-acantomes], which can turn into cancer in older rats.

A counter-study is needed.

- We agree. We also want a counter-study, but it must be carried out by independent researchers. Not by those who produce studies for manufacturers of GMOs. That is not the position of the EFSA at the moment (European Food Safety Agency).

 

Firstly, I am. They are probably both biased and flawed. Secondly, my field is cancer research, not genetic engineering

If there is one to be found that I would have access to, perhaps I'll look when I have more time.

No, I think you or someone else posted a link to that previously no?...and no need for you to be patronizing, is there? What you seem to fail to understand is that I am not in any way attempting to support Monsanto or any other GMO producing company's studies supporting what they want to do. I simply dislike the ill-considered hysteria and bandwagon slogans about gm food being poisonous, toxic, carcinogenic etc. because most of it is probably utter nonsense. I don't have the kind of time necessary to delve into the scientific literature on this subject to the degree you are demanding here, so my answer to the question of whether gm foods are dangerous to one's health, remains the same as it's always been: maybe yes, maybe no and in either case there are a long list of things we do and are exposed to on a daily basis that have far greater and known health risks than gm foods so I'm not going to spend much time worrying about it. When some well designed and implemented study is performed that shows a causal link between the protein produced by the novel genetic material as well as a biochemical mechanism for causing disease, then it might pique my interest a little more than it does for now. As Roo pointed out somewhere, the biodiversity issue is more of a tangible concern.

________________________________
　

And still do

Not really. Despite the interview or whatever that was you posted answering the criticisms that were made, it was really the content of the criticisms I was pointing out, not the authority of those making them that was of interest to me. In any case I don't think they were adequately addressed. I'll have to pick this up again later as I have an offline life to attend to.

 

JoanofSnarc,
　
You're going to have to forgive me for refusing to take you seriously any longer. In your haste to prove a point, you have shown that you lack the discipline to even research the material you quoted from in post #80 which you tried to use as proof that your unfounded suspicions are anything like well-founded. If you would have researched the EFSA before posting that, you would not be finding yourself in the position you now find yourself in.

And let me get this straight. You say that you believe that most of the hysteria about the toxicity of GMOs is probably utter nonsense, yet in the same post, you say that your answer to the question of whether or not you believe they are dangerous has always been (maybe; maybe not). Is it fair for me to say that, while you admit that you do not know whether or not GMOs are dangerous, you nevertheless believe that any concerns (hysteria) about the danger is probably utter nonsense?

 

In response to the issues raised, and in line with the Sustainable Food Trust's organisational mission of serving the public interest by ensuring that peer-reviewed results on the outcome of different farming systems are subjected to public scrutiny, we have assimilated some responses to the issues raised concerning criticisms of the Seralini study; these are supplied by scientists with expertise in this field.

________________________________________

CRITICISM: Strain of rats used Sprague-Dawley (SD) is prone to tumours

RESPONSE: SD rats have been used in most animal feeding trials to evaluate the safety of GM foods, and their results have been used by the biotech industry to secure approval to market GM products. They were used in the 90-day feeding trial that was conducted by industry to evaluate the toxicity of NK603 GM maize as part of the application for approval within the EU. They were also used in the original glyphosate two-year toxicity studies conducted in 2002 for regulatory approval within the EU.

The industry standard for toxicity tests performed by industry for regulatory purposes is the international protocol set out by the OECD (Organisation for International Cooperation and Development). This says that long-term carcinogenicity studies should be performed with the same strain of rat as used in shorter mid-term experiments, because this allows effects seen in the shorter experiment to be tracked to see how they develop in the long-term experiment, without the confounding factor that would occur if a different strain of rat was employed. Therefore, based on the past use of SD rats in trials of GM food and glyphosate it was scientifically correct and consistent to use this strain in Prof Seralini's long-term study.

The rats that consumed NK603 GM maize and/or Roundup in Prof Seralini's trial had an incidence of tumours, which was not just significantly greater than the control rats but also also significantly greater than observed in previous studies of SD rats. The tumour incidence in the test groups in his study was overall around three times higher than that the normal rate observed in the Harlan Sprague Dawley rat strain he used, as reported in the literature (Brix et al., 2005) including in the largest study with 1329 Sprague Dawley female rats (Chandra et al., 1992).

Furthermore, the key is that there were both quantitative and qualitative differences in the tumours arising in control and test groups. In the control rats they appeared much later and at most there was one tumour per animal if at all. In the treated rats the tumours began to be detected much earlier (four months in males; seven months in females), grew much faster and many animals had two or even three tumours. Many animals in the test groups had to be euthanised under animal welfare rules due to the massive size of the tumours; none of the control animals had to be euthanised but died in their own time. One should not ignore these biological facts.

Just to illustrate the point by analogy. We know that a small proportion of people who never smoke get lung cancer. If you smoke, the rate/risk of getting lung cancer is about 12 times higher than if you don't smoke. The measurement is called a "relative risk". So, imagine that there is an ethnic group of people with a higher rate of naturally occurring lung cancer. We know that if people in that group smoke, their rate of lung cancer will still increase like everybody else.


CRITICISM: The control groups were far too small. Looks like "random variation" in rats liable to develop tumours.

RESPONSE: This two year life-long experiment was conducted in a GLP environment according to international OECD guidelines in terms of animals used.

Standard practice is for the control group to be matched in size to the experimental groups. The experimental groups were 20 animals [10 male + 10 female] and therefore the control group should be 20 animals.

Prof [Anthony] Trewavas is not correct to say: "The control group is inadequate to make any deduction. Only 10 rodents so far as I can see and some of these develop tumours. Until you know the degree of variation in 90 or 180 (divided into groups of ten) control rodents these results are of no value." The 20 animal control group is big enough to get a measure of tumour frequency. You don't need to look at hundreds of animals. If he believes this, then he should also agree that the studies done by others including industry are also invalid.

The key thing is that there are big differences between the tumour frequencies in the control and the experimental groups (see previous answer). Claims that the results are just the result of random variation in a rat line that has a high frequency of tumours are not valid. The evidence for this is that the differences between the groups are much larger than the standard deviations of the two groups. In Seralini's study, the differences are so large that it is not necessary to use a statistical test. This study used more rats in test groups, for a far longer duration, than any previous investigation employed by industry to obtain approval for NK603 GM maize and other GM crop products.


CRITICISM: The statistical analysis was flawed. Didn't use standard methods. A "statistical fishing trip".

RESPONSE: The statistical analysis was one of a number of valid methods that could have been used to evaluate a diverse set of data sets. An expert statistician was part of the research team and this was certainly not a "fishing trip". Significance in many liver and kidney parameters are shown and highlighted in the Tables 1 and 2.


CRITICISM: No data was given about the rats' food intake or possible contamination of the maize with fungus, which could have influenced results.

RESPONSE: The rats had unrestricted access to food and water and there were no differences in consumption or drinking levels between controls and test groups except for the group exposed to the highest Roundup concentration, which drank less water, perhaps due to the presence of high amounts of this herbicide making the water taste different.

All feeds were biochemically analysed to make sure they were nutritionally equivalent and no other toxins were present.


CRITICISM: Why were some test groups healthier than controls? How does one address the 30% premature death rate of males within the control group?

RESPONSE: From the mortality and tumour incidence rates in Figures 1 and 2 some test groups were not significantly better or worse than the controls. Yes, there were some premature deaths not only in the male but also female control groups. However, the levels are still lower than that observed in most test groups.


CRITICISM: Another red flag was that tumour rates didn't increase in line with the dose of GMOs fed to animals, as scientists would expect to see if the genetically engineered corn were to blame, said Kevin Folta, a plant molecular biologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Instead, "you are likely seeing variation of normal tumour incidence in a small population of rats," he said.

RESPONSE: We are not dealing here with a regular poison effect where increasing the dose will increase toxic effects. What is observed is due to hormonal system disturbances, which are known to display nonlinear effects ("U" or "G" shape responses to exposure). That is, for example, a low dose can have a disturbing effect and a higher dose can have no effect and then an even higher dose can elicit a response (U-shape response). Indeed, non-linear responses were to be expected in the rats treated with Roundup, as glyphosate, its active ingredient, is known to disrupt the endocrine system. In addition, in this case a threshold effect was also observed where a low dose appeared to saturate the system and so a higher dose had no additional effect.

(For an authoritative review on non-linear dose responses in hormonal systems, which the data implies is taking place in Prof Seralini's study, see Hormones and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Low Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses, Vandenberg et al 2012).


CRITICISM: The mechanism is unclear. Why should GM maize cause tumours? Why should Roundup have the same effect?

RESPONSE: These are very good questions that only future research will provide clear answers. However, Prof Seralini's team hypothesises that the reason why the GM maize alone [without Roundup added] is affecting the liver and mammary gland systems is due to the EPSPS GM gene. The function of this GM gene may be the reason why the authors found that the GM maize had significantly lower amounts (up to 50%) of substances (caffeic and ferulic acids), which have protective effects against cancer formation and even mammalian tumours. Moreover, these phenolic acids and in particular ferulic acid may modulate estrogen hormone function as does glyphosate in the Roundup.

Future research will ascertain whether these hypotheses are significant contributory factors or whether the cause lies elsewhere, such as disturbances arising from the mutagenic effects of the GM transformation process.


CRITICISM: The results are out of line with other long-term studies that have investigated the safety of GMOs fed to a range of animals including chickens, rats, mice, quail, monkeys and fish, said Agnes Ricroch, a geneticist at the University of Paris XI and Pennsylvania State University, who co-wrote a review of 24 such studies that was published this year.

RESPONSE: It is scientifically incorrect to compare this long-term study with this particular variety of GM maize to other investigations using different GM feeds and different animals. Different animals have different anatomies and biochemistry; different GM feeds will have different compositions. One needs to compare like with like.

The study by Prof Seralini is the first long term feeding trial with this particular variety of Roundup tolerant GM maize, fed at three different doses. The only previous investigation with NK603 GM maize is a 90 day feeding study conducted by industry as part of its application for approval within the EU. This involved only two doses and a much narrower range of analyses. However, upon close independent scrutiny even this short term feeding trial showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity. The paper referred to [Ricroch] is a review of 24 GM feeding studies that are mostly short to medium term (90 days) and also measure a small range of organ and biochemical functions compared with Prof Seralini's work.

Some of the studies referred to in this [Ricroch] review do in fact show statistically significant signs of toxicity to liver, kidney and immune systems arising from the consumption of GM soy and maize. Nevertheless, the authors dismissed these as not biologically relevant, without further empirical investigation. Despite these early signs of toxicity, the authors of this review did not recommend extending these mostly short and medium-term studies to see what would happen. Prof Seralini's work has now filled in this gap with a two-year lifetime trial and has provided hard data which raises serious concerns.

 

From my post, you quoted this: "Would you like to rethink your decision to use the EFSA in your attempt to trash the Seralini paper?"

Why are you referring to the JECH's findings concerning the abundance of conflicts of interest within the EFSA as an interview?

I think you need to see this:

http://earthopensource.org/files/pdf...confidence.pdf

 

storch I don't give a tin shit whether you take me seriously or not.

No, I just don't have the time to get into a cut and paste battle with you. If you have something interesting to say about it that comes from your own thought process and isn't just an endless tract of google-foo for me to waste my time reading I might want to take it up at some point. Otherwise, I have some actual, real-life science to conduct and some things in my personal life to attend to that are more important than getting into an internet dick waving contest with you.

The position is all in your imagination.

Please note the words, most, probablty, hysteria and maybe. Take as long as you like to figure it out.

 

JoanofSnarc,

Are you forgetting that you "copied and pasted" material from the EFSA without first researching their track record of corruption and conflicts of interest? You did not even look at the JECH report contained in the link I posted, did you? All of what they reported concerning the conflicts of interest within the EFSA was sourced and referenced. We're not talking "bias" here; we're talking corruption. My guess is that you did look at it, and you understand completely the sort of blunder you made by using the EFSA as proof that the Seralini paper was invalid, and now you're hoping that your emotional outburst will somehow detract from your error. It doesn't! You're confusing dick-waving with information-waving.
　
And I would still prefer that you present an independent, peer-reviewed evaluation of both the Seralini paper and Monsanto's information and data that did not involve the EFSA before you express doubt about the Seralini paper. In fact, why don't you provide something in the way of peer-reviewed, independent short-term and/or long-term studies on the effects of GMO foods on mammals?
　
JoanofSnarc: Final review of the Séralini et al. (2012a) publication on a 2-year rodent
feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as
published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology 1

From that link:

STATEMENT OF EFSA
Final review of the Séralini et al. (2012a) publication on a 2-year rodent
feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as
published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology 1
　
Storch: "I have to admit to chuckling over your offering of their (EFSA's) criticism. Apparently you were unaware that . . ."

JoanofSnarc: "No, I think you or someone else posted a link to that previously."

______________________________________________

So you see, the position I claim you find yourself in is not imaginary. You simply forgot what you had posted.

____________________________________

I'm sorry to be taking up time that you believe would be better-spent elsewhere. But then again, I'm not in charge of that decision, am I?

 

Quote:

"And let me get this straight. You say that you believe that most of the hysteria about the toxicity of GMOs is probably utter nonsense, yet in the same post, you say that your answer to the question of whether or not you believe they are dangerous has always been (maybe; maybe not). Is it fair for me to say that, while you admit that you do not know whether or not GMOs are dangerous, you nevertheless believe that any concerns (hysteria) about the danger is probably utter nonsense?"

____________________________________________

My point in that post was that you chose to use the term "probably utter nonsense" in reference to those who believe that GMOs are dangerous. Yet you stated that your position has always been that maybe they are, and maybe they're not. Does that mean that you would also use the term "probably utter nonsense" in reference to those who believe that GMOs are safe? Or are you really not as neutral as your "maybe yes, maybe no" stance would lead myself and others to believe?

 

Oops, wrong thread.

 

Nope. Not forgetting, but what I copied and pasted was the summary of the criticisms in the paper along with some commentary. What I didn't do, is make 3 or 4 successive and lengthy posts and demand you read them and offer no comment on them. As I mentioned previously regarding your comments about the EFSA is that I don't follow (or care much about) the political jostling going on in Europe over GMOs. If you say the scientists are corrupt, well fine. I wouldn't know much about it, but calling them corrupt doesn't address the criticisms of Seralini's paper that they made. I know how and who tests them here in my country and am content with the procedure for approving such products. I linked to that review simply because it was more recent and addressed the Seralini work directly. No, I didn't research the background of the many scientists from several countries. I don't have that kind of time on my hands and was really only concerned with the criticisms offered.

I looked at it briefly. I would have preferred you summarized it in your own words and provided a link rather than taking the hack and splat approach. There were several points I made earlier on that you and everyone else completely ignored as well. Highly relevant ones when we're discussing the relative risk of food items. There were also two threads about the same general topic going on which made it hard to keep track of who said what and where given the sometimes limited time frame in which I have to read a thing and respond. So yes, it's quite possible that I was thinking of something posted in the other one when posting in this one

First of all, I was not offering the paper so much as proof but as an extant criticism of Seralini's paper that warranted further discussion of the actual criticisms therein. Scientific papers are not really proof of anything and I'm just not that invested in the subject (emotionally or otherwise) that I feel the need to offer proof to you or anyone else. It was enjoying the discussion up to the point where you began demanding that I read the material, bombarded the thread with lengthy, successive cut and paste posts and became condescending and patronizing.

I've spent enough time on internet discussion forums to know dick waving when I see it. It comes hand in hand with condescension. If it's information you're waving, summarize and provide a link, don't carpet bomb and pepper with self-righteous condescending remarks.
　

I'll express all the doubt I want, when I want. You can choose not to take it seriously or put me on ignore if you prefer not to read my posts. I don't have that much google-fu time, quite frankly, and don't have access to every journal in which something relevant might be published. You're the one who seems emotionally invested in Seralini's paper. It would simply be an act of academic honesty for you to seek out criticisms of it which you consider to be valid. I'm not going to spend all kinds of time searching for papers which you probably won't read anyway.

Two reasons: Because I've had my fill of internet warriors and you are starting to seem like one of them. Also,


So is there some reason that if you're so concerned with the health safety of GM foods that you don't simply buy organically grown food and eat only that or are you out to save the world from the evil genetic engineering companies? Just wondering.

 

JoanofSnarc,

Ok, you've expressed your disapproval of the way I presented information. Fortunately, I'm not looking for your approval. A cursory search on the internet is all it took for me to find out how corrupt the EFSA is. It's not my problem that you neglected to research the reputation of an organization whose material you chose to use to back your ideas; it's your problem. And you were correct to say that if the scientists are corrupt, you don't know anything about that. My point is that you should have.

In answer to your second paragraph, being confused about what you're saying is not my problem.

Your third paragraph is basically a repeat of the first paragraph. You don't like lengthy posts; I get that!! Might I suggest that if it really bothers you so, just stop responding. That's what I would do.

Not surprisingly, your fourth paragraph is a repeat of your third paragraph, with the exception that you also don't like my attitude. Again, not my problem.

In your fifth paragraph, you recommend that I put you on ignore if I don't like you expressing doubt about the Seralini paper. I don't mind if you express doubt; have at it. But I don't want to hear about your lack of time to research google-fu. Not my problem. And if you don't have the time to search for papers because you believe I wouldn't read them anyway, well then that's your choice, isn't it.

And lastly, you state that you're not going to produce any independent, peer-reviewed short or long term studies of the effects of GMO foods on mammals because you've had your fill of internet warriors, and that I'm starting to seem like one of them. And you thought I was emotional?

Your last comment is a transparent attempt to characterize the challenge and the challenger rather than meet the challenge. It's called damage control, and it's the losing end.

Just curious, JoanofSnarc, but why didn't you produce the studies before I started to seem like an internet warrior? And no matter what your answer to that is, please produce the independent, peer-reviewed long-term/short-term studies done on mammals that proved the safety of GMOs. Do it now.

 

JoanofSnarc,

You chose to use the term "probably utter nonsense" in reference to the belief that GMOs are dangerous. Yet you stated that your position has always been that maybe they are, and maybe they're not. Does that mean that you would also use the term "probably utter nonsense" in reference to the belief that GMOs are safe? Or are you really not as neutral as your "maybe yes, maybe no" stance would lead myself and others to believe?

You never did reply to that. Or did I ask that just before I started to seem like an internet warrior?

 

storch, you are the one making the positive statement here: GM foods are dangerous to your health. You are making it in the face of a broad scientific consensus that GM foods are not likely any worse for your health than traditionally produced food. It is incumbent upon the one making the positive statement to "prove" it, not the one expressing doubt about your claim. A single, even a small handful of scientific papers does not constitute proof. What you have failed to understand is that I'm not making a positive statement that I need to back up with reams of scientific studies. I am being skeptical about your positive statement.

 

JoanofSnarc,

This is why I'm having difficulty taking you seriously. Your first paragraph is nothing but a rant containing several mentions of my failure to back up a positive statement which I have made. The problem with that rant is that I have made no such positive statement that "GM foods are dangerous to your health" (italics yours). You're reaching for a straw that is not even there! I believe that that would qualify as a knee-jerk reaction to the information I've been providing.
　
And yes, JoanofSnarc, this: ". . . or are you out to save the world from the evil genetic engineering companies? Just wondering" is a last ditch effort to paint me as a fanatic. I don't think you understand how your assigning a positive statement to me which I never made can make you look like a fly-off-the-handle reactionist--a fanatic, if you will. I'm sorry that the material I've posted puts your sources or Monsanto in a bad light. Perhaps you simply needed more time.

Speaking of time, I'm frankly getting tired of hearing you bemoan your lack of time to read or to present anything in the way of independent, peer-reviewed long-term studies which would prove the safety of GMO foods. Again, that's not my problem; it's yours! But just as a helpful hint, why don't you use the time you used to mistakenly attribute a positive statement to me to locate those studies I've asked to see? Maybe it's a time-management issue here! That said, if you don't want to read through any more hack and splack, I recommend that you don't. No one is forcing you. This isn't for you only, you know.

For others who happen to come across this thread just now, I would recommend page #7 for informational meat.

 

JoanofSnarc,

You chose to use the term "probably utter nonsense" in reference to the belief that GMOs are dangerous. Yet you stated that your position has always been that maybe they are, and maybe they're not. Does that mean that you would also use the term "probably utter nonsense" in reference to the belief that GMOs are safe? Or are you really not as neutral as your "maybe yes, maybe no" stance would lead myself and others to believe?

You never did reply to that . . . again. Maybe this time?

 

Also, JoanofSnarc, I showed you the JECH review of the EFSA; specifically the corruption and conflicts of interest that exists within and throughout its ranks. It was all sourced and referenced as well. So, did you really say: "but calling them corrupt doesn't address the criticisms of Seralini's paper that they made."?? WTF!!

 

I think shouting the loudest doesn't make you right.

 

Nonsense. It is not a rant and wasn't a quote of something you said. Unlike you, I put quotes in quote tags so as not to confuse. You have been waving the Seralini study and the dying cow study in my face for several pages. I think it's quite obvious that you believe GM foods are a health hazard, or at least require extensive testing beyond the equivalence and other evaluation of them that is currently done. If I'm wrong about your position, then what is the purpose of waving these studies as though they were proof of something? Perhaps you could state your position clearly then.
　

What you fail to comprehend is that no study can prove the objective safety of any food, genetically modified or otherwise. I tried to explain this concept to you earlier on in this thread and you chose to completely ignore it along with all the other substantive comments I made. Instead you chose to harp on the Seralini paper and the EFSO review instead. In the latter case the only value I attached to it when I posted it was that it was more recent. I then outlined the criticisms it made of the Seralini study and made a couple of comments about them. Instead of discussing the criticisms in it you chose to berate me for not investigating the background of the scientists who did the study.

Let me tell you something about that you may not know, assuming that you yourself are not a scientist. Correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption. When scientists read other scientists papers in a journal they do not investigate the personal affiliations and background of the paper writing scientists. They don't need to do that. They look at the science that is described in the paper because that is really all that is important to them and because they are typically qualified to evaluate it. It's only really non-scientists or politically motivated groups - people who are either unwilling or unable to evaluate the science therein - who attack a scientists credibility or associations with industry and scream bias when they don't like the conclusions drawn. It may well be that a given scientist is biased by these associations. However, that often becomes clear in evaluating the methods reported or in examining the data if they are made available and then assessing the conclusions drawn.

On a related note, many working scientists have corporate affiliations. Sadly, it's a necessary thing. Apart from the scientists governments employ, whose salaries and research are funded by taxpayers, most of the rest of us must rely on some combination of government grant money, corporate funding or facility user fees to support and continue research. It's not an ideal state of affairs by a long shot. It's just a reality, without which, a lot of very good scientific work could not continue.

Nobody within the scientific community waves papers, credentials or petitions around as certificates of authority to support their opinion about a given subject. That is the purview of internet discussion fora. Given that this internet forum is where this absurd conversation is taking place, I will have to make some concessions to the way I would normally conduct such dialog. If you wish to continue the discussion, then we'll have to agree on some terms of engagement. Otherwise, I will not waste my time. I would rather read the most excellent novel I've started or gaze at my belly button or something.

I'll specify these tomorrow evening when I get home from work and if you still wish to continue, then fine.