Monsanto Protection Act Sneaks Through Senate

JoanofSnarc,

You did indeed say that I stated that GMO foods are dangerous to your health. You told me that the onus was on me to prove the statement. Go back and re-read it for yourself. I challenge you to find where I made that statement. I won't hold my breath.

All I've done is present information; that's all. What that information shows is up to the readers. And what they make of it is not my fault.
I also challenge you to show me how I've been waving the dying cow study in your face for several pages. Please post the "several" pages you claim I did this. I won't hold my breath for that either. I believe that your deliberate embelishment of the number of times I presented the dying cow issue is further proof that your fanaticism is alive and doing well. And you still don't understand why I don't take you seriously? Really?

And you know quite well that I've posted a co-author of the Seralini paper answering the corrupted EFSA's criticisms of that paper. I also posted other scientists' answer to the EFSA's criticisms. You did read them, no? If you have a problem with the answers to the criticisms, I suggest you make them known. Then we can discuss them further. I also posted information stating that Paul Deheuvels, an eminent statistician and a member of the French Academy of Sciences was not consulted when the Academy released a statement discrediting the results of Seralini's study on GMOs. If you will remember, he was the only member of the French Academy of Sciences who 100% specialised in statistics. You will also remember that he exposed his arguments leading to a position opposing the Academy's position.

Moreover, I find it oddly humouous that criticisms coming from an agency rife with conflicts of interest having to do with being in bed with the biotech companies is your idea of a good source to post a negative criticism of the GMO foods. I'm still waiting for you to post some other long-term studies of the effect of GMO foods on mammals. And please don't use the lame excuse that used before, which was: "Because I've had my fill of internet warriors and you are starting to seem like one of them." You know, I'm beginning to think that there are no such studies. I could be wrong, and I welcome you to prove it.
　
And yeah, I got some terms of engagement that I wish you would follow. I would begin with asking you to not do things like referring to my bringing up the issue of the the german farmer's dead cow court case as having been done several times; in other words, no more fanatical embellishments to make something true that really isn't true just for the pupose of making me look fanatical; funny how that backfired on you. And I would also ask that you not refer to corruption and conflicts of interest as simple bias, as that would be ridiculous.

And I'll try this one more time:

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 and again! I've highlighted the pertinent part. A simple yes or no will do.

 

You're not listening. You're obfuscating...and I think perhaps also, grandstanding. Nevertheless, my intent is to revisit everything, including the Seralini study and the EFSO criticisms and the interview response you mention. Before that, though we're going to revisit the comments and questions I made immediately before about testing protocols and a couple of other points you conveniently either glossed over or ignored completely. We will deal with them one at a time until we're both satisfied that they have been discussed adequately before we continue on to other topics and issues. If you can't keep from hurling ad homs at me and projecting feelings and opinions onto me that I simply don't have then we're done here and I must conclude that you are incapable of discussing the meat of the issues and are simply grandstanding for your friends here. I'll provide more details about how we might continue later if your interested. So what's it going to be cully?

 

JoanofSnarc,
　
You're being forgetful. It is neither an ad hominem attack nor a projection of feelings or opinions onto you when I hold you to your inaccuracies pertaining to what I have stated. For your edification: "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."

I challenged you to locate this positive statement and show it to me. However, it appears that you're having about as much luck locating that "statement" as you are in locating any long-term study of GMO foods on mammals to compare with the Seralini paper. I would suggest to you that your time would be better spent hunting that study down--if it indeed exists--rather than coming back here to deny claiming I made a positive statement, when in fact, I did not. I'm just providing information. I apologize if it's inconvenient to your ideas, but you could remedy the situation by simply posting some long-term studies, or at least a link to where they can be found. You appear to be posturing, presumably for the purpose of stalling because you can't find any long-term studies. I recall asking you why you don't provide something in the way of long-term studies which prove the safety of GMOs. You said it was because I was starting to seem like an internet warrior. May I infer from that that you do have them, but are simply withholding them as a way to punish me for starting to seem like an internet warrior? If that is the case, as you say it is, then I feel obliged to tell you that you're actually punishing yourself.
　
And I understand quite well why you're ignoring this:

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?
　
It points to a bias in your position concerning the safety of GMO foods. You said that your position has always been "maybe they are, and maybe they're not." Therefore, your use of the term "probably utter nonsense" in reference to the belief that GMOs are dangerous could equally apply to the belief that they are safe. For some reason you're refusing to admit that. It indicates a bias on your part. That's why you're not to be taken seriously.
　
I also took note that you couldn't find the several instances that you claim I waved the cattle-death court case in front of your face. So why did you claim I did? Knowing that you will never answer that, I will tell you that you did it to bolster your characerization of me as a fanatic. You are prone to embellishments. That's another reason why you're not to be taken seriously.
　
I have a question for you. In terms of study-length, the number of parameters examined, the carefulness of design--they were conducted in a GLP environment according to international OECD guidelines--Seralini's study is stronger than the 90-day studies carried out by the biotech industry. So why would you opt to give more credence to the less strong studies?

And after you answer that . . .

Let's start with the criticism concerning the type of mouse used. About that, you said this:

"The use of Sprague-Dawley rats almost makes me think that these short-lived, tumor-prone rats were deliberately chosen . . ."
　
Here is one of the co-author's answer to that: "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."

What would you wish to say about that? I would have thought that you would have at least researched the issue enough to know that Monsanto used the same rats.

And as far as me grandstanding for my friends, I have none here. Check out my friend-list on my profile page; it's empty.

 

Yes, yes, we'll get to all that and more, storch, but first back to the beginning and before we go there, there are a few things we need to agree upon before we proceed. That is why I'm ignoring all of your bluster for the time being.

1. We both need to restate our position in regard to the OP and or the first few posts following it. The reason we need to do that is that you seem to be wildly misrepresenting what I think about the whole issue and if you say you don't think gm foods are dangerous, then fine, but state your position for the record. The benefit of doing this is so that we both understand the fundamental premises of each other's argument. Your posts in this thread have never really made that clear. The only clues you've provided are your vehement defense of the Seralini paper which seems to indicate that gm foods are dangerous. Having not made a simple and direct statement of your position, we are left to assumption, which is always sketchy. So, unless such a statement of yours was buried somewhere in the prodigious quantity of verbiage you've been hurling at me and I just missed it, either state your position or restate it so we can be clear about it.

Mine can be stated simply and I will quote from my first offering of it from post #16 on page 2.

2. We will deal with one issue at a time as regards the safety of gm food and not proceed to another issue until we are both satisfied that the one at hand is dealt with. The first issue is the one I raised in post #16 that addresses the way gm foods are evaluated. In the following post, you completely ignored this issue and asked me about the effects of GM corn on mammals instead. I recommend we start with this issue because it is an important factor in determining the relative safety of a food item. We can then address the other issues in the order they arise in the thread.

I am not going to respond to a post that ignores a relevant point then proceeds to bombard me with questions, diversions and intimations about what I think or believe about the issue. I'm not a prisoner at Git'mo and the Inquisition ended some centuries ago. If you can't stay focused on one issue at a time and address the relevant and substantive points made in my posts, then it is no longer a discussion I'm interested in having, as you will have shown yourself incapable of coherent and orderly discussion of a subject.

3. We will remain civil throughout. That means no imaginative projecting of each others intent or meaning, no calling me a forgetful fanatic. The only sense in which I am a fanatic about this issue is that I am fanatically ambivalent about it. If you are uncertain about what I mean by something I've said, ask for clarification. I will stop suggesting that you seem to be an internet warrior type. I spent several years as a moderator on a discussion board that dealt with subject matter quite a bit more contentious than this and I have run into many an internet warrior there. Your argument style is the poster boy for internet war and you appear to be escalating in that form as this thread proceeds. Experience has shown me there is no point in discussing anything with such individuals. They will always twist what you say into something else, muddy the waters, create diversions by focusing on irrelevant issues, the posts get longer and more prodigious as do the quoted segments, the arrogant demands become more shrill and frequent and soon they lapse into insult, bolded and capitalized texts, claims about knowing what's in the other's mind and so on. If you are not an internet warrior and are just very excited about this discussion topic, the way to keep me from thinking you are one is to stop behaving like one. Term #2 should keep us away from the path that leads to this kind of absurd exchange.

4. Quotations. Papers and other referenced texts should be quoted as briefly and sparingly as possible to further illuminate and emphasize an idea therein, which you have adequately paraphrased. This both provides a manageable summary of the information you wish to convey and tells the reader that you have read (at least the salient points) and understood the source material you are quoting. Provide a link so that readers can check the original source to determine if the paraphrasing is a correct understanding of the material or read further details in the original source material. Cutting and pasting long tracts of someone else's work is not only academically lazy, it is most often a thinly veiled attempt to overwhelm readers with sheer volume and give the impression that they know more about a thing than they actually do. There's an expression on the internet: tl;dr. That applies most emphatically to quoted text.

BB code provides quote tags. If your post is more than one paragraph long or the quote more than one line, please use them. Quotation marks are completely lost in lengthy quotes and it's irritating to readers to have to go back and figure out if that was something the poster said or if it was something someone else said.

So, if you agree to these commonly held conventions of discourse we can continue as described. If not, you will have to find another willing participant in your textual masturbation.

 

JoanofSnarc,

That has to be the best attempt I've ever seen of someone trying to avoid a real discussion in real time by bringing it to a grinding halt when they didn't want to answer a question. I'm afraid that you're not going to dictate the terms of anything. Not unlike EFSA, you have attempted to reverse the burden of proof when it should be the responsibility of the one claiming the safety of GMOs to actually prove the safety of those GMOs. But since you hold a neutral position, it would appear that you have no burden at all. How convenient. However, you did say that all the concerns about GMOs being dangerous are probably utter nonsense. That doesn't sound neutral to me.
　
My position is that you can't produce any long-term study that would prove the Seralini paper invalid. I'm sorry, but that is the fact of your position. And any 90-day study you can produce will be weak in comparison to the Seralini study; I've already explained that to you, but you apparently don't want to accept it. But it's true, JoanofSnarc.
　
And once again, you've demonstrated your lack of enough discipline to refrain from characterizing the challenge and the challenger and to just meet the challenge. I could have sworn that I left you with a question. And look at the length you went to in order to avoid answering; it was a lot of tactical bluster. Just answer the question, unless you really don't want to. In that case, there's nothing I can do to force you. But I'll ask you one more time.

Let's start with the criticism concerning the type of mouse used. About that, you said this: "The use of Sprague-Dawley rats almost makes me think that these short-lived, tumor-prone rats were deliberately chosen . . ."

Here is one of the co-author's answer to that: "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."
　
Now I would have thought that you would have at least researched the issue enough to know that Monsanto used the same rats. What would you wish to say about that?
　
If you're going to say that you don't have to answer that, or give account of yourself for thinking that the use of short-lived, tumor-prone rats was a deliberate attempt at deception on the part of the authors of the Seralini paper because your rules dictate that you don't have to, then I don't like your rules. Nobody would! You're stalling, and it's obvious . . . really.
　
　
You say you want things to be civil and with no imaginative projecting of each others intent or meaning. I'm sorry, but it was not my imagination that you claimed I waved the cow-court-case in your face for several pages when in fact I did no such thing. In my opinion, that makes you fanatical--an emotional liability to yourself and any point you are hoping to make. I told you what you did, and you don't like it, and you don't want to explain yourself. I don't blame you for being angry about it, but it's very nonproductive both scientifically and personally to take it out on the one who caught you. Sorry, but that's reality.
　
Now, to get back on topic, I will offer this: In terms of study-length, the number of parameters examined, the carefulness of design--they were conducted in a GLP environment according to international OECD guidelines--Seralini's study is stronger than the 90-day studies carried out by the biotech industry. Do you agree that it would be foolish to consider Monsanto's 90 day study superior to Seralini's 730 day study?
Monsanto’s 90-day feeding trial on NK603 maize,3 which EFSA accepted as proof of safety, has the following weaknesses:

Six irrelevant "reference" control diets were introduced. These only served to introduce "data noise", which largely masked the effects of the genetic modification. In fact, significant differences were revealed in liver and kidney measurements, but these were masked by the wide range of variables introduced by the six irrelevant "reference" diets. This is scientific sleight-of-hand.

The rats were only followed over 90 days, a relatively short period equivalent to around 7-9 human years.4 This is inadequare to assess health risks to humans, who can be expected to eat a GM food over a lifetime.

Statistically significant differences were found but were dismissed as not treatment-related or not biologically meaningful, without scientific justification. The study period was not extended to see if these differences were in fact biologically meaningful.

Blood and urine samples were analyzed from only ten rats out of groups of 20. Yet organ weights were measured for all 20 rats per group. So the Monsanto researchers selected ten rats per sex out of 20 to analyze. What were the selection criteria? Did they choose those whose organ weights were the healthiest? Or did they analyze all 20 rats from each group and select the ten most favourable measurements to report? The method of selecting well may have been objective and random, but there is no way of knowing, and apparently, EFSA does not care. This practice invalidates the study as it introduces a scientifically unacceptable selection variable.

Fewer parameters were measured than in Séralini’s study, and less often.
Fewer doses of the maize were administered than in Séralini’s study (two, to Séralini’s three). The Monsanto researchers tried to draw a dose-response conclusion from feeding just two doses (11% and 33% maize), but a minimum of three doses are necessary to draw a valid dose-response conclusion, since with only two points you can draw a straight line between them regardless of how they relate to one another. Three doses are required by the OECD 408 protocol on which Monsanto researchers base their studies; it is unclear why Monsanto 90-day studies habitually use only two.

________________________________

Does that do anything to influence you in regards to your alleged neutral position?

 

Well I guess that's a no. Enjoy your fapping storch and don't forget to wipe up after yourself.

 

JoanofSnarc,

An infantile response is no substitute for honest answers to uncomfortable questions.

 

This was an apt metaphor for your posting style, storch, but I don't expect you to pick up on the linguistic subtleties. In any case, our discussion is finished since you are either unable or unwilling to conduct it reasonably. Fortunately, I don't need you to participate at all and will continue to ignore your harrying, though I am going to do some of my own, less irritating fapping. I have some more to say about the matter and perhaps some of the things said in the last few pages require further explanation, comment or exploration. It may happen that some of the questions you raised will get an answer if I decide they are relevant but note, I am not discussing anything with you...just thinking out loud for the benefit of anyone else who cares to read or comment, and for my own genuine interest in the science-related matters surrounding the issue. It will probably be piecemeal, as time permits, but I plan to revisit most of the issues raised from the beginning of the thread onward, with the exception of the poo-flinging storch and I engaged in.

With regard to the OP, I'm not sure what to think about the piece of legislation it references. Legalese makes my head hurt, tbh. Back in the early 1990's I did a 4 year degree in environmental science which consisted primarily of chemistry and toxicology but included a couple of oh-so-painful courses on Canadian environmental law and regulation. I loathed it, but what I took away from it (apart from the reams of mind numbing legal details) is that on paper, most of the legislation looks pretty good - looks as though it is sufficient to protect the environment and our health. In practice though, much of the legislation is toothless...not all of it, but still quite a bit of it might as well not even be there for all it means in practical terms. There have been some minor improvements in the past couple of decades, at least here. Legislation is ultimately interpreted by lawyers, and above them in the pecking order, politicians. Not a group I hold much trust in, frankly...right down there in the cesspool with mega-corporations, their CEOs, BODs and the everlovin' stockholder pressure they seek to appease at all cost. However, that is the reality and it's all we have to work with. Beyond that, I can't really comment on the legal matters.

That said, I'm going to return to post #16, pg. 2. Prior to that post there seemed to be a lot of negative sentiment regarding gm foods, generally a perception that they are dangerous to human health and shouldn't be consumed. I don't find that surprising because it does coincide with public sentiment for the most part. With any new technology there are always two extremes at the outset. The developers and proponents tend to claim that it's perfectly safe and wonderful and will provide benefit...blah, blah, blah, ain't the future a fabulous place. Conversely, there's always a fearful public outcry. It's toxic! It's dangerous! We're all gonna die! While some concerns may be well founded, many more are simply a result of fear, misinformation and lack of scientific knowledge and literacy. As time goes by we typically find that the reality is some grey area in between the two extremes. It is the grey area that I am interested in. Thus my statement about being skeptical about the polarized ends of the debate surrounding gm foods.

Given that, I thought it was more important to talk about, not how Monsanto et. al represents and tests their product (though their tests follow guidelines and standards set out by the FDA and in this country, Health Canada) and not the fear mongering political lobby groups with their largely misinformed claims, but the current reality of the actual testing and safety considerations adopted by most western nations.

I reread the entire document I've linked to in post #16 and realized there are quite a number of things I want to point out about the contents in addition to those I've already noted. One of those things is that this procedure for evaluation is more than a decade old. Over all, the procedural flow seems quite sound but I'd like to find an updated version of it to see if some of the recommendations have been implemented and also to find out what the current, specific test protocols are, given advances in analytical instrumentation and technologies in the past decade. So I'm going to search for some of this information over the weekend and pack it in for tonight.

 

JoanofSnarc,

An apt mataphor for my posting style? I am not the one whom has loaded my posts with characterizations of the challenger instead of meeting the challenge. That was you. I am also not the one who has demonstrated a propensity toward embellishment when I decide that embellishment will suit my purpose. That was you. I have pointed out to you twice where you did this, and you have still not answered for it. Also, I am not the one who posts images within my posts which are designed to ridicule. That was you. I am also not the one who has made the claim that their position--when it comes to the safety of GMOs--is that maybe they are, and maybe they aren't, and then refuse to admit that the belief that they are safe is equally utter nonsense. That was you, and it indicates a bias on your part.

_______________________________________________

Now, where were we?
　
The biotech industry's study which the EFSA accepted as proof of safety, has the following weaknesses:

Six irrelevant "reference" control diets were introduced. These only served to introduce "data noise", which largely masked the effects of the genetic modification. In fact, significant differences were revealed in liver and kidney measurements, but these were masked by the wide range of variables introduced by the six irrelevant "reference" diets. This is scientific sleight-of-hand.

The rats were only followed over 90 days, a relatively short period equivalent to around 7-9 human years. This is inadequate to assess health risks to humans, who can be expected to eat a GM food over a lifetime.

Statistically significant differences were found but were dismissed as not treatment-related or not biologically meaningful, without scientific justification. The study period was not extended to see if these differences were in fact biologically meaningful.

Blood and urine samples were analyzed from only ten rats out of groups of 20. Yet organ weights were measured for all 20 rats per group. So the Monsanto researchers selected ten rats per sex out of 20 to analyze. What were the selection criteria? Did they choose those whose organ weights were the healthiest? Or did they analyze all 20 rats from each group and select the ten most favourable measurements to report? The method of selecting well may have been objective and random, but there is no way of knowing, and apparently, EFSA does not care. This practice invalidates the study as it introduces a scientifically unacceptable selection variable.

Fewer parameters were measured than in Séralini’s study, and less often.

Fewer doses of the maize were administered than in Séralini’s study (two, to Séralini’s three). The Monsanto researchers tried to draw a dose-response conclusion from feeding just two doses (11% and 33% maize), but a minimum of three doses are necessary to draw a valid dose-response conclusion, since with only two points you can draw a straight line between them regardless of how they relate to one another. Three doses are required by the OECD 408 protocol on which Monsanto researchers base their studies; it is unclear why Monsanto 90-day studies habitually use only two.
　
Now, rather that having a discussion with yourself, respond to the above, if you will.

Also, you claimed that the industry's tests follow guidelines and standards set out by the FDA. And what guidelines might those be?
　
GM foods were first commercialised in the US in the early 1990s. The US food regulator--the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA)--allowed the first GM foods onto world markets in spite of its own scientists’ warnings that genetic engineering is different from conventional breeding and poses special risks, including the production of new toxins or allergens. The FDA overruled its scientists in line with a US government decision to "foster" the growth of the GM industry. The FDA formed a policy for GM foods that did not require any safety tests or labelling.

The creation of this policy was overseen by Michael Taylor, FDA’s deputy commissioner of policy--a position created especially for Taylor. Taylor was a former attorney for the GM giant Monsanto and later became its vice president for public policy.
　
Here is link to actual documents containing FDA scientists' concerns:

http://biointegrity.org/list.html

________________________________________________-
　
Contrary to popular belief, the FDA does not have a mandatory GM food safety assessment process and has never approved a GM food as safe. It does not carry out or commission safety tests on GM foods.

The outcome of the FDA’s voluntary assessment is not a conclusion, underwritten by the FDA, that the GMO is safe. Instead, the FDA sends the company a letter to the effect that:

The FDA acknowledges that the company has provided a summary of research that it has conducted assessing the GM crop’s safety.

The FDA states that, based on the results of the research done by the company, the company has concluded that the GMO is safe.

The FDA states that it has no further questions.

The FDA reminds the company that it is responsible for placing only safe foods in the market.

The FDA reminds the company that, if a product is found to be unsafe, the company may be held liable.

Clearly, this process does not guarantee--or even attempt to investigate--the safety of GM foods. While it does not protect the public, it may protect the FDA from legal liability in the event that harm is caused by a GM food.

 

Here is the conclusion of a study published by the American Chemical Society and found in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry:

In conclusion, the results obtained indicate that the consumption
of MON810 maize used in the present study induced
alterations in intestinal and peripheral immune response of
weaning and old mice. Although the significance of these data
remains to be clarified to establish whether these alterations
reflect significant immune dysfunctions, these results suggest
the importance of considering the gut and peripheral immune
response to the whole GM crop, as well as the age, in the GMO
safety evaluation.

http://www.cyberacteurs.org/sans_ogm/fichiers/finamore08-jf802059w.pdf

And this study was conducted for only 30 and 90 days.

 

And since Health Canada has been mentioned along with the FDA, here is something concerning them and GMOs:

Health Canada did not conduct a safety assessment for ‘SmartStax’. The department has chosen to exempt stacked trait GE crops from its already weak biotech safety assessments. Health Canada has approved the eight traits separately, in the past, and does not see anything new in combining the eight traits together. This is not consistent with the international guidelines that Canada has negotiated at Codex. Codex guidelines are recognized under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and are used to settle trade disputes. Codex is clear that foods from stacked crops with stacked GE traits should go through a full safety assessment for new unintended effects. Health Canada did not do this and does not even list the ‘SmartStax’ corn on its website as a new GE food.
　
'SmartStax': No Safety Assessment from Health Canada:

Summary: On July 15, 2009 Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences announced that they received approval to introduce their new eight-trait GE corn 'SmartStax' into Canada and the US. But Health Canada did not assess 'SmartStax' for human health safety and did not even bother to authorize it. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency authorized the environmental release of 'SmartStax' but never conducted an environmental risk assessment and actually substantially weakened its environmental stewarship rules for the crop. Because the eight traits have previously been approved in separate crops, Canadian regulators do not see anything new in combining the eight together in one crop - despite the fact that the Codex international food safety guidelines that Canada helped to negotiate clearly state that stacked traits can lead to unintended effects and should be subject to a full safety assessment.

 

Ok, I've located and browsed through the Canadian guideline for assessment of gm foods, which is similar in procedure to the older review of the FDA's evaluation protocol by the US General Accounting Office (2002) but was updated in 2006. Health Canada is currently developing a procedure for including environmental impact assessment and evaluation of indirect health effects of novel food items as part of their assessment mandate. Such assessment is currently made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and companies submitting a novel product for consideration must meet the requirements of both HC and CEPA. Since I am more familiar with the laws and practices of my own country I'll work with this document. In addition, this is the procedure used to evaluate gm foods, rather than a review of a proposed procedure. It should be noted that, although there are differences among nations in terms of regulating gm products, most developed nations and international health organizations (eg. WHO) have adopted very similar standards and recommendations for the evaluation of novel foods. Also of note, a small number of European countries have banned gm foods outright.

One might get the impression from reading solely anti-gmo material that companies like Monsanto do their own crooked and biased testing and government regulatory agencies simply rubber stamp it and, tada! The public is being sold unhealthy and toxic foods courtesy of the great corporate-government conspiracy and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is a closeted, card-carrying member of the great global conspiracy in which governments of democratic nations and international corporations are out to poison their citizens (and presumably themselves since they are also citizens) by allowing gm foods to be marketed. To be clear, I'm not saying that anyone who has posted in this or the other related thread is making such a claim, but any quick search of the Internet will produce reams of such unsubstantiated and imaginative material. It is this type of material that I refer to as "hysteria" and will reject without further investigation. I do not reject, out-of-hand, the well founded concerns of individuals - be they scientists or members of the non-scientific public - if there is some valid evidence to support their concern.

My objection to organizations such as Greenpeace (with regard to gm foods) is twofold. One, they begin with the premise that gm foods are unsafe and then proceed to "prove" it by any means necessary. This is not equivalent to stating hypotheses, performing well-designed experiments, analyzing the data obtained and making conclusions that are supported by the data. Though they have both the funding and employ scientists who might otherwise be qualified to perform such experiments, they don't do them. This brings me to my second point of discomfort with Greenpeace - their tactics. Greenpeace doesn't seem terribly interested in scientific evidence or protocol. What they're interested in is winning over public opinion and gaining further support for their activities, regardless of how unfounded their premises may or may not be. What they do instead is wage public relations and media wars and disguise them in plausible sounding "scientific" rhetoric. When they are unable to counter the criticisms made of some scientific point, they resort to scandal-mongering and smear tactics, all of which increases their support base. Win-win for them. Scandal is easy to understand. Real science, not so much. That takes hard work and intellectual effort that most people, it seems, would rather not engage in. A bit of a rant here, but all of it is relevant in regard to the Seralini studies, which I'll get to later on.

The only meaningful way to determine whether such evidence of safety concerns are valid is to evaluate them using the analytical tools that are currently available and commonly agreed upon as acceptable scientific standards for evaluating food safety. What makes science valuable as a means for investigating the natural world is that it is flexible. When better procedures, analytical instruments and techniques are developed and shown to be sound through repeatable results, they are eventually adopted and become the new standard. We can't use investigative tools and techniques that don't yet exist and as a society, we can't afford to use the ones we do have frivolously or without some evidence to show that the expense is warranted. Public fears about possible health risks as a result of consuming gm foods do not constitute evidence that would justify such a massive expenditure of public money. Quantifiable and significant probability of health risk, based on validated, scientific evidence, does justify the expenditure. So far, there has been no such evidence-based probability shown to indicate that gm foods as a class pose a public health risk.

Unless they are not significantly different from another gm food already approved, each novel food item must be individually evaluated before being approved for market. The cost of the initial safety testing is borne by the company making the application, as it should be and has to be. The tests must conform to the guidelines set out in the regulatory body and relevant legislation. If they don't, the application is rejected until it does conform. If it conforms, the data provided are distributed and reviewed by a multidisciplinary team of scientists. From the Standard Operating Procedure, page 10,

Once the test data have been distributed to the appropriately qualified testing bureau,

If those interested in this topic read no other part of this 100+ page document, at least read the standard of practice on page 10-11 to see that approval of gm food is not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the manufacturer's own test protocols and results.

<continued in a bit. I have something I have to attend to now>

 

The problem I have with the post above is that all I heard was what organizations the poster trusts and which ones they don't. Whereas I have posted evidence of inadequate testing on the part of the biotech industry, the poster above has produced nothing that would detract from that evidence, and refuses to comment or to even acknowledge that evidence. When someone doesn't believe the accuracy of information which is contrary to their opinion, and they fail to produce anything substantial to counter that information, there is a reason for that failure.

Readers will note that even after proving that the FDA rubber-stamps the findings of the industry's GMO tests without doing their own testing, the poster above will still deny that that's exactly what happens.
　
I would challenge the poster above to deal with what is posted below in a scientifically responsible way. The reason they will not is because they can't.
　
Contrary to popular belief, the FDA does not have a mandatory GM food safety assessment process and has never approved a GM food as safe. It does not carry out or commission safety tests on GM foods.

The outcome of the FDA’s voluntary assessment is not a conclusion, underwritten by the FDA, that the GMO is safe. Instead, the FDA sends the company a letter to the effect that:

The FDA acknowledges that the company has provided a summary of research that it has conducted assessing the GM crop’s safety.

The FDA states that, based on the results of the research done by the company, the company has concluded that the GMO is safe.

The FDA states that it has no further questions.

The FDA reminds the company that it is responsible for placing only safe foods in the market.

The FDA reminds the company that, if a product is found to be unsafe, the company may be held liable.

Clearly, this process does not guarantee--or even attempt to investigate--the safety of GM foods. While it does not protect the public, it may protect the FDA from legal liability in the event that harm is caused by a GM food.

_______________________________________
　
When someone will not even acknowledge the facts even when they are placed right before their eyes, that is called denial. Likewise, when faced with the proven fact that government overruled FDA scientists' warnings about GMO foods, denial kicks in again, and there is not so much as a squeak of recognition from the poster above. I am inclined to believe that there is a reason for that.
　
Earlier in the thread, the above poster said that the reason they will not produce a long-term study which would counter the Seralini paper was because I was starting to seem like an internet warrior. I believe that there is another, real reason why they don't produce it, and they know full well what that reason is. I have produced a short-term study that did indeed expose reasons for concern. Not surprisingly, the above poster was silent on that issue as well.
Even when faced with this . . .

Here is the conclusion of a study published by the American Chemical Society and found in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry:

In conclusion, the results obtained indicate that the consumption
of MON810 maize used in the present study induced
alterations in intestinal and peripheral immune response of
weaning and old mice. Although the significance of these data
remains to be clarified to establish whether these alterations
reflect significant immune dysfunctions, these results suggest
the importance of considering the gut and peripheral immune
response to the whole GM crop, as well as the age, in the GMO
safety evaluation.

http://www.cyberacteurs.org/sans_ogm...-jf802059w.pdf

And this study was conducted for only 30 and 90 days.

. . . the above poster nevertheless holds the faulty idea that, "So far, there has been no such evidence-based probability shown to indicate that gm foods as a class pose a public health risk." Ironcally, in the same post, they say, "Scandal is easy to understand. Real science, not so much."

The above poster also chose to use the term "probably utter nonsense" in reference to those who believe that GMOs are dangerous, even though they are on record as stating that their position has always been that "maybe they are, and maybe they're not." When asked if they would therefore also use the term "probably utter nonsense" in reference to those who believe that GMOs are safe--which would be be the case if they were truly neutral as they claim--they remain silent, refusing to answer.

 

It's important to understand the concept of substantial equivalence as well as the way in which it is used to evaluate gm foods. First it is a necessary starting point, not an end point as has been suggested by some critics. Secondly, there is no reasonable, alternative strategy for beginning a safety assessment of a gm food. None of the opponents criticizing this strategy have been able to suggest a viable alternative.

Substantial equivalence compares the gm food to its non-modified counterpart using several points of comparison. While each type of food and genetic modification considered may require additional points of comparison or, in the case for which there is no comparable non-modified food item, a modified strategy since there is nothing with which to compare the gm food, the fundamental parameters considered under the strategy include the following:

Detailed definitions and explanations of these factors are provided in the body of the above linked document for foods that do have non-modified counterparts that show a history of safe use and for those that don't.

The reason substantial equivalence is used, is to identify differences between the conventionally grown food and the gm food. This is necessary because many natural, non-modified foods contain toxins. If a gm food is not compared with a non-modified counterpart then it is at best, difficult and costly and at worst, impossible to determine whether a toxic effect is the result of genetic modification or the result of some toxin inherent to the food in its unmodified state. One of the benefits of all the controversy surrounding gm foods is that scientists have begun to examine all kinds of conventionally produced foods to identify toxins that occur naturally in either the food or the preparation or processing of the food.

For details about these natural toxins, I posted a link early in this thread, outlining some of them. I'll post it again here for convenience. Naturally Occurring Food Toxins. Here is an example, from the text, of a toxin found in many raw, natural foods.

If, for example, a gm broccoli was tested without comparing it to its natural counterpart and the data then indicated there was an deleterious effect on thyroid function, how then could that effect be interpreted sensibly?

Note: If I ask questions in the course of these posts, please understand that I am not demanding prompt answers or any answer at all from anyone reading it. They are simply food for thought and consideration.

Most of us consume many foods that contain natural toxins, on a daily basis and over the duration of our lives and don't experience any identifiable ill effect as a result of doing so. That could be because we simply haven't identified and associated a food toxin with any of the illnesses we experience, but it is also related to the amount of it we consume. Dose. Exposure. The second factor considered in substantial equivalence. Pure, satisfying and essential for survival water is toxic if you consume too much of it. It has an LD50 (the amount required to kill 50% of the test subjects) of 90,000 mg/Kg (1mg=1ml). If you drink as little as 4-5 liters over a period of 2-3 hours you may well experience hyponatremia, cerebral edema, seizures or death (Dolan et.al 2010)

Toxicity is always relative and dose dependent. The greater the toxicity the less of the substance it takes to harm or kill. Which is more toxic, Cyanuric acid (an industrial chemical used as a component in bleaches, disinfectants and herbacides) or Delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol (THC, the active ingredient in marijuana)? Answer: (THC LD50 1270mg/kg): (Cyanuric acid LD50 7,700 mg/kg). THC is almost 7 times more toxic. Lysergic acid-LSD (LD50 16.5 mg/kg) is comparable in toxicity to Arsenic trioxide, a compound commonly used in pesticides (LD50 14 mg/kg). We don't typically die from drinking water, smoking marijuana or taking LSD (?) because the dose we are exposed to isn't high enough. Dose is a critical component of determining the toxicity of a substance or food. In setting safe levels of consumption, the lowest dose showing toxicity is typically divided by 100 or sometimes 1000, so that if a toxic effect shows up at 1mg/kg the safe level is set at 0.01 mg/kg or 0.001 mg/kg depending on the nature and severity of the toxic effect and the regulatory standards for a given country. This is done to accommodate differences in individual response to a substance and to provide a safety margin for exposure/consumption. Toxicity studies on human subjects are usually not considered ethically feasible.

Substantial equivalence looks at all the factors quoted above and if there is a significant difference between the gm food and its natural counterpart then further, more specific analyses are mandated. If there is no significant difference between them and no other reasons for withholding permission to market the item (environmental assessment, indirect health effects) then the product can be marketed.

Is it a perfect strategy? Probably not. Could there possibly be long term negative health effects from products that pass the equivalence test? Yep, it's possible. Unfortunately, we can't make decisions and regulations based on what might happen. Our respective governments can't just reach into taxpayers pockets for money to investigate things for which no apparent evidence nor any hypothesized mechanism of health effect exists.

Some critics have suggested we abandon the use of substantial equivalence in favor of extensive biological, toxicological and immunological testing for every modified food product submitted for approval. (Millstone, Brunner and Mayer 1999; Nature 401 pp 525-526). This and a couple of other critiques made a decade or so ago all suffer from an oversimplification and misrepresentation of what substantial equivalence requires in terms of testing and of the role it plays in the larger assessment process. Those criticisms don't even touch on the economic feasibility of conducting such extensive testing.

What hypothesis could be used as the basis for such a study if no comparison is made that uncovers a difference in any of the factors used in the substantial equivalence test procedure? It would be like looking for an invisible needle in a haystack. Or, to pose the uncomfortable question I originally asked in post #59, pg 6 (which received no response from storch, btw),

. At this point, I don't expect a response from anyone. Just more food for thought that I think got lost in the shitstorm that followed.

Should the gm product developers pay for testing of unknown variables and unpredictable effects? They already absorb the majority of the cost of extensive testing that conforms to the requirements of Food and Drug legislation and regulatory agencies. However much we might dislike their business practices, western economies rely increasingly on biotech industries (See Measuring the Biobased Economy). Our days of manufacturing economy are on the way out, outsourced to countries where profits can be maximized. It's not an argument against more extensive testing and we may not like the practices of such companies much, but it is a reality that requires some serious consideration, I think.

There are all kinds of other questions that can be raised in regard to how best to evaluate gm food products. I'm not going to write a book here though. If I think of some others or come across some I haven't considered before I may post them as I continue on with this. Next up (though I'm not sure when I'll next have a large enough chunk of time to consider it adequately) is the Seralini studies - both the statistical reanalysis and the experimental...and lo and behold, I've located the actual experimental results for the latter rather than someone's summary of them, so now (at least in this latter case) we can go over the actual science presented and not have to concern ourselves with scientist's personal lives and corporate affiliations or rely on waving studies that support one opinion or another. Oh Joy!

 

In order to clear up any misconceptions concerning the issue of "substantial equivalence":

The concept of substantial equivalence has never been properly defined; the degree of difference between a natural food and its GM alternative before its ‘substance’ ceases to be acceptably ‘equivalent’ is not defined anywhere, nor has an exact definition been agreed by legislators. It is exactly this vagueness that makes the concept useful to industry but unacceptable to the consumer. Substantial equivalence is a pseudo-scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgment masquerading as if it were scientific. It is, moreover, inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests.
　
The US FDA’s approach to assessing the safety of GM crops and foods is based on the concept of substantial equivalence, which was first put forward by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a body dedicated not to protecting public health but to facilitating international trade.
　
Substantial equivalence assumes that if a GMO contains similar amounts of a few basic components such as protein, fat, and carbohydrate as its non-GM counterpart, then the GMO is substantially equivalent to the non-GMO and no compulsory safety testing is required.
　
Claims of substantial equivalence for GM foods are widely criticized as unscientific by independent researchers.A useful analogy is that of a BSE-infected cow and a healthy cow. They are substantially equivalent to one another, in that their chemical composition is the same. The only difference is in the shape of a minor component of a protein (prion), a difference that would not be picked up by a substantial equivalence assessment. Yet few would claim that eating a BSE-infected cow is as safe as eating a healthy cow.

When claims of substantial equivalence have been independently tested, they have been found to be untrue. Using the latest molecular analytical methods, GM crops have been shown to have a different composition to their non-GM counterparts. This is true even when the two crops are grown under the same conditions, at the same time and in the same location – meaning that the changes are not due to different environmental factors but to the genetic modification.

Examples include:

GM soy had 12–14% lower amounts of cancer-fighting isoflavones than non-GM soy.

Canola (oilseed rape) engineered to contain vitamin A in its oil had much reduced vitamin E and an altered oil-fat composition, compared with non-GM canola.

Experimental GM rice varieties had unintended major nutritional disturbances compared with non-GM counterparts, although they were grown side-by-side in the same conditions. The structure and texture of the GM rice grain was affected and its nutritional content and value were dramatically altered. The authors said that their findings "provided alarming information with regard to the nutritional value of transgenic rice" and showed that the GM rice was not substantially equivalent to non-GM.

Experimental GM insecticidal rice was found to contain higher levels of certain components (notably sucrose, mannitol, and glutamic acid) than the non-GM counterpart. These differences were shown to have resulted from the genetic manipulation rather than environmental factors.

_______________________________________________
　
All this, and much more--with sourced references--can be found here:

http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf

 

storch



Any particular reason this post needs to be three times the size as normal?

 

Thanks, Odon. What would I do without you?

Concerning the Seralini re-analysis of Monsanto 90-day study:

In 2007 Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, researcher in molecular biology at the University of Caen and president of the independent research institute CRIIGEN, and his research team published a re-analysis of a Monsanto 90-day rat feeding study that the company had submitted in support of application for the approval of its GM maize MON863. Approval was granted for food and feed in the EU in 2005. Monsanto tried to keep the feeding trial data secret, claiming commercial confidentiality, but it was forced into the open by a court ruling in Germany.

Séralini’s re-analysis of the Monsanto data showed that the rats fed GM maize had reduced growth and signs of liver and kidney toxicity. Seralini concluded that it could not be assumed that the maize was safe and asked for such studies performed for regulatory purposes to be extended beyond 90 days so that the consequences of the initial signs of toxicity could be investigated.

After Séralini and his team published this and other papers showing harmful effects from GM crops and the glyphosate herbicide used with GM Roundup Ready crops, he was subjected to a vicious smear campaign. The smears appeared to come from the French Association of Plant Biotechnologies [Association Française des Biotechnologies Végétale] (AFBV), chaired by Marc Fellous.

Séralini believed the researchers Claude Allegre, Axel Kahn, and Marc Fellous were behind the defamation and intimidation campaign in France. He sued Fellous for libel, arguing that the campaign had damaged his reputation, reducing his opportunities for work and his chances of getting funding for his research.

During the trial, it was revealed that Fellous, who presented himself as a "neutral" (hmmm . . . sounds familiar) scientist without personal interests, and who accused those who criticise GMOs as "ideological" and "militant", owned patents through a company based in Israel. This company sells patents to GM corporations such as Aventis. Séralini’s lawyer showed that other AFBV members also have links with agribusiness companies.
The court found in Séralini’s favour. The judge sentenced the AFBV to a fine on probation of 1,000 Euros, 1 Euro for compensation (as requested by Séralini) and 4,000 Euros in court fees.

 

Thank me for what? Nothing has changed. It is a choice you made. I wondered why.

 

It was copied from a pdf, Odon. I forgot to change the font. I think you're reading too much into this. I hope my following post met with your approval.

 

Oh, I see, fair enough - you just can't be bothered to change it?