Not a new article, but I hadn’t seen it before.
Not sure I trust this, it was done by the French. Pretty scary though if true. They were fed legal within the legal limits for human consumption.
Hard to form an opinion on this without reading the actual study…which i can’t seem to get my hands on. The abstract is available but no full-text for free.
Scary indeed, but there are a large number of comments criticizing this paper–and the pathology data and in the journal it was published in (read the date: sept 19th 2012. Many of the comments are 2013, published this year even though voiced soon after the paper was published in september). The critical comments are by publishing scientists, but it remains to be seen if they carry weight and also the distribution of plant scientists vs. Monsanto company vs. non-affiliated.
As with any hot-button issue, people come out of the woodwork biased and flaming just like this here forum. They just use bigger words and have initials after their name. Welcome to the world of scientific dogfights 
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Hard to form an opinion on this without reading the actual study…[/quote]
Really? Can’t form an opinion without someone else publishing it? Seems rather unlike you.
These studies, pretty typically, embody a false option or disregard the layers of larger questions/assumptions. Assuming giving up GMO foods means giving up glyphosate (Roundup was used long before Roundup Ready Crops existed) you then assume giving up glyphosate means giving up industrial herbicides (‘Agent Orange’-type compounds are much cheaper and more effective, but more toxic), fungicides, and pesticides and then you assume that giving up all pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides somehow increases human health and vitality (despite the fact that most of the plants you eat and the ecosystems around them are trying to kill you).
Not saying the data shouldn’t be collected or the theories examined, but there is an intellectual dishonesty in the portrayal;
Only 30 per cent of the control rats developed tumours
ONLY! WTF did those rats eat that ONLY 30% of them developed tumors? Rats “9255 GMO” and “9344 GMO + R” look way better than “9202 R”, which, I assume, only got Roundup. And considering Roundup is nowhere near as toxic or carcinogenic as aflatoxin (in natural peanut butter) or hemagglutanin (all manner of red beans) or trypsin inhibitors (soybeans) or the dozens of other contaminants natural or not that we tolerate in our food supply, I gotta lean towards ‘not worried’.
I freely admit mice and rats with massive tumors can be scary though. I used to work in a mouse core facility with hundreds of them. Even if you have only hatred for mice; the breeding of, effectively, walking tumors gets soul-crushingly creepy.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Hard to form an opinion on this without reading the actual study…[/quote]
Really? Can’t form an opinion without someone else publishing it? Seems rather unlike you.[/quote]
Perhaps I should have clarified. I mean that I could not form an opinion on the study referenced in the newspaper without reading the study in full. All I found was the abstract which makes no mention of methods, materials, compliance standards, or statistical treatment of the results. You’re a scientifically minded person, you must know that’s foolish if the study in question is controversial. The rest of your post essentially reinforces why I couldn’t comment on the study itself. In fact even the abstract is remarkably light on details in general.
[quote]These studies, pretty typically, embody a false option or disregard the layers of larger questions/assumptions. Assuming giving up GMO foods means giving up glyphosate (Roundup was used long before Roundup Ready Crops existed) you then assume giving up glyphosate means giving up industrial herbicides (‘Agent Orange’-type compounds are much cheaper and more effective, but more toxic), fungicides, and pesticides and then you assume that giving up all pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides somehow increases human health and vitality (despite the fact that most of the plants you eat and the ecosystems around them are trying to kill you).
Not saying the data shouldn’t be collected or the theories examined, but there is an intellectual dishonesty in the portrayal;
Only 30 per cent of the control rats developed tumours
ONLY! WTF did those rats eat that ONLY 30% of them developed tumors? Rats “9255 GMO” and “9344 GMO + R” look way better than “9202 R”, which, I assume, only got Roundup. And considering Roundup is nowhere near as toxic or carcinogenic as aflatoxin (in natural peanut butter) or hemagglutanin (all manner of red beans) or trypsin inhibitors (soybeans) or the dozens of other contaminants natural or not that we tolerate in our food supply, I gotta lean towards ‘not worried’.
I freely admit mice and rats with massive tumors can be scary though. I used to work in a mouse core facility with hundreds of them. Even if you have only hatred for mice; the breeding of, effectively, walking tumors gets soul-crushingly creepy.[/quote]
They used Sprague-Dawley rats. That breed is known to be highly susceptible to tumors within its lifetime irrespective of diet and particularly when fed ad lib.
Many questions about this study, hence why I want to see the data and treatments.
Might reduce metabolic rate-
and obesity is the #1 problem in the first world…
Review of 19 published studies may indicate liver and kidney issues
fun part is the authors had to file court actions to get some of the study results.
just some fun immunological analysis. conclusion is more research is needed
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ocean/aap/2005/00000026/00000003/art00010
there are many more, as well. When I went a digging, studies such as these were plentiful. I havent really dug dug deep, but I couldnt find the original Mansanto data for comparison.
conflicting data means we need to turn to risk management. what criteria should we look examine?
-edited-
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
conflicting data means we need to turn to risk management. what criteria should we look examine?[/quote]
First, to VERY VERY VERY many farmers, the data isn’t very conflicting at all. They save time, money, land, and energy using Roundup Ready crops. The yields in both quality and quantity of their livestock don’t generally suffer from the incorporation of Roundup Ready crops into their foodstocks. You don’t start producing a world full of GMO crops overnight, just like with iPhones and Facebook, there are first adopters and beta testing that market-wise, pretty thoroughly vet any obvious faults. Even without market data, the mechanisms by which GMOs and glyphosate are postulated to cause disease, even trivial, are poorly documented and understood if they even exist at all (more research is needed!). It’s a little like declaring that a risk assessment needs to be done on iPhones because a double-blind trial found that consumers reacted better to or generally had less carpal tunnel syndrome when working with the wood-grain and brass components of a telegraph.
Second, in lieu of the above, the default to risk management has some inherent faults. It’s biased by the idea that the greatest risk is strictly derived from the limited progressive action in question. That is, you assume risks are relatively independent and fixed, ignore risk you incur from inaction, you generally ignore or deprioritize the benefits from action, and you COMPLETELY ignore any other risk you may incur. You assess the risk of GMOs vs. non-GMOs to see if there’s a greater/lower cancer risk involved with non-GMOs when it’s much more likely that you’ll die in a car accident. Or you consider the risk of cancer from GMO soybeans to be intolerable but ignore the fact that GMOs combined with a probiotic (Has it been tested for cancer inducing effects multi-generationally?!?!?) can completely offset the cancer-causing effects of GMOs.
Finally, as I pointed out above and in other cases, you don’t do or didn’t do a risk assessment before, is there some obvious correlation or compelling causative evidence to indicate that the risk has changed considerably? By that I mean to focus on the risk incurred from inaction, is there any evidence or mechanisms to explain why you wouldn’t get cancer despite the chemicals use in/as food anyway? I eat tons of aflatoxin which is both toxic and strongly carcinogenic do I wait for the results of a risk assessment of GMO peanuts before I stop eating aflatoxin riddled peanuts?
I recall a term used by Kids not long ago: “Eat Me!”
Ok, your wish is their command.
[quote]Karado wrote:
I recall a term used by Kids not long ago: “Eat Me!”
Ok, your wish is their command.
You’re going to have to do better than that Karado. lucasa and I both have actual research science experience. There are so many questions about what you posted it’s not worth it. And your sources are, shall we say, lacking in both bibliography and specifics.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
conflicting data means we need to turn to risk management. what criteria should we look examine?[/quote]
First, to VERY VERY VERY many farmers, the data isn’t very conflicting at all. They save time, money, land, and energy using Roundup Ready crops. The yields in both quality and quantity of their livestock don’t generally suffer from the incorporation of Roundup Ready crops into their foodstocks. You don’t start producing a world full of GMO crops overnight, just like with iPhones and Facebook, there are first adopters and beta testing that market-wise, pretty thoroughly vet any obvious faults. Even without market data, the mechanisms by which GMOs and glyphosate are postulated to cause disease, even trivial, are poorly documented and understood if they even exist at all (more research is needed!). It’s a little like declaring that a risk assessment needs to be done on iPhones because a double-blind trial found that consumers reacted better to or generally had less carpal tunnel syndrome when working with the wood-grain and brass components of a telegraph.
Second, in lieu of the above, the default to risk management has some inherent faults. It’s biased by the idea that the greatest risk is strictly derived from the limited progressive action in question. That is, you assume risks are relatively independent and fixed, ignore risk you incur from inaction, you generally ignore or deprioritize the benefits from action, and you COMPLETELY ignore any other risk you may incur. You assess the risk of GMOs vs. non-GMOs to see if there’s a greater/lower cancer risk involved with non-GMOs when it’s much more likely that you’ll die in a car accident. Or you consider the risk of cancer from GMO soybeans to be intolerable but ignore the fact that GMOs combined with a probiotic (Has it been tested for cancer inducing effects multi-generationally?!?!?) can completely offset the cancer-causing effects of GMOs.
Finally, as I pointed out above and in other cases, you don’t do or didn’t do a risk assessment before, is there some obvious correlation or compelling causative evidence to indicate that the risk has changed considerably? By that I mean to focus on the risk incurred from inaction, is there any evidence or mechanisms to explain why you wouldn’t get cancer despite the chemicals use in/as food anyway? I eat tons of aflatoxin which is both toxic and strongly carcinogenic do I wait for the results of a risk assessment of GMO peanuts before I stop eating aflatoxin riddled peanuts?[/quote]
a- i wasnt talking about farmers. stay on topic.
b- when did i mention cancer. stay on topic.
c- when did i not do a risk assessment? there is a mountain of data indicating dangers, so yes there is compelling causative evidence to indicate the risk has changed from the original data Monsanto presented that painted things as just fine. and again, when the fuck did i mention cancer?!?!?! and why do you automatically assume we dont wash food? and what leads you to the conclusion that eating non-GMO foods means you are going to ingest so many toxins and so much pesticide that you are going to get cancer? The EPA said the amounts of pesticides ingested from a healthy diet are not dangerous - EDIT-wrong link, have to find the right one
now, can we get back to the topic at hand? what criteria should we use? I assume carcinogen/cancer risk is a big one for you. shall we include liver toxicity? kidney issues? metabolic damage?
It’s amazing how you sped read through all the links and PDF’s in the short amount of time since I posted this to come to that jack rabbit conclusion.
So cut to the chase…Are you and Lucasa generally PRO GMO, or not?
And why?
[quote]Karado wrote:
It’s amazing how you sped read through all the links and PDF’s in the short amount of time since I posted this to come to that jack rabbit conclusion.
So cut to the chase…Are you and Lucasa generally PRO GMO, or not?
And why?[/quote]
I am at an internet cafe at the moment, and doing a lot of reading of lit. it’s pretty easy lol.
I don’t care one way or the other. I like to eat organic if I can, I think much of the criticism is overblown, but just as with everything in science it needs to be done right and thoroughly analyzed and criticism can help do that. In short, I don’t particularly care although I would prefer to eat organic. There are other issues I am more concerned about.
And I certainly don’t like sensationalized news or headlines like “Genetically Modified Foods–The Silent Killer” (actual headline from one of your sources/linked pages). Nor do I trust or like sources on the internet with the .tv address. I want concrete, not sensation. That’s why I said your sources were light on detail. All sound and fury…you know how that quote ends. You are very rapidly approaching conspiracy theory levels with some of these online sources Karado. They cannot be taken at face value.
In addition, your sources make some patently false claims that are contradicted by the very links they give–You are NOT eating the GM rice that is produced in Junction City. It is NOT in the food supply, and claims as such amount to little more than lies and show the source as something not to be trusted by one actually knowledgeable.
The concern about cross breeding in the wild (via wind or other means of carrying seed) and creating resistant strains of weed via adaptation to the new crop is the most concerning to me, not the “silent killer”. This is a concern both on grounds of resistant weeds that could destroy crops and eventually curtail the crop yields in the US and other places, and also a concern on legal grounds as Monsanto has been using a lot of nasty legal means lately to get money for “Pirating” Round-up crops from farmers whose crop fields are accidentally cross-bred with Round-Up ready crops nearby via cross-winds carrying seeds into the adjacent fields. That is not fair to the farmers.
From one of your “sources”
[quote]On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa using genetically modified (GM) foods. He also blamed Europe?s ?unfounded, unscientific fears? of these foods for thwarting recovery efforts. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key to greater yields, expanded U.S. exports, and a better world. His rhetoric was not new. It had been passed down from president to president, and delivered to the American people through regular news reports and industry advertisements.
The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by corporations determined to control the world?s food supply. This was made clear at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a representative from Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how his company had helped Monsanto create that plan. First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in fifteen to twenty years. Monsanto executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson Consulting then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it."[/quote]
and this
[quote]Integral to the plan was Monsanto?s influence in government, whose role was to promote the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, ?The hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there?s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender.?
The anticipated pace of conquest was revealed by a conference speaker from another biotech company. He showed graphs projecting the year-by-year decrease of natural seeds, estimating that in five years, about 95 percent of all seeds would be genetically modified.[/quote]
I absolutely defy you to find this mythical quote from a conveniently anonymous “consultant”. And I absolutely, positively defy you to confirm this actually happened at that conference. Further, this was 1999…year of conquest is already passed. Or did the local underground resistance cells everywhere and on the internet succeed in delaying the Evil Corporate Government Tag Team.
…or this
And you expect me to take this as anything except a blatantly obvious conspiracy theory website??? The bias is so palpable I am chewing it. This is not reporting and it is not anything except a cheap hack job of the issue.
You must be joking. It’s all I can do to withstand littering expletives in this post. You might be a very nice guy, and in fact i seem to get that vibe from you so I am trying to be nice back, but you cannot be fucking serious with this bullshit. This is not “research” nor is it “accurate” in any near realistic sense of the word. This is conspiracy theory bullshit. Did the Mafia or the FBI or the Russians kill JFK? Or was it the Corporations?
Be serious.
Yeah, the very same sites that warned about NSA snooping, was way ahead with the Federal Arms to Mexican Cartels
stories WAY before they became ‘‘mainstream’’, etc…Funny how the masses wait for the ‘‘mainstream’’ to confirm stories
that once sounded crazy…I take 'em from various sources BTW, just because you walk into a certain restaurant I’m
not going to accuse you of liking everything they serve on the menu.
GMO’s are trouble, no need to answer the question or even debate, it’s clear where you stand on GMO’s being that you’re heavily
biased toward their continued use.
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/The-Gene-Revolution-The-Future;search%3Athierry%20vrain
Yes no need to continue debate being that i know you are putting words in my mouth by saying i am “heavily biased” in favor of them and are thus setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is considered “unbiased”…even though one of us has authors advanced biochemical peer reviewed studies and has an advanced biochemistry degree…and it isn’t you.
You might want to try that again. I am perhaps even much “less biased” than lucasa. Half my family raises grass fed beef in small non corporate farms and grows organic. What i ACTUALLY said was find me hard science facts and studies. There remain serious questions to be asked and answered but you do not get to pretend like i am the one being unreasonable here by linking to websites making outlandish stories AND OUTRIGHT BLATANT FACTUAL LIES and then calling me heavily biased.
I do not care for that. Do not do it again please.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
a- i wasnt talking about farmers. stay on topic.[/quote]
So the fact that they have more first-hand experience than all the scientists in the world is irrelevant? The fact that they live and work in fields of the stuff is immaterial? The fact that their livelihood depends on the very questions you ask is of no consequence? Believe it or not, science isn’t done exclusively by Ph.D.s in labs.
Cancer was hypothetical the actual disease is irrelevant the point is you’re proposing a risk assessment with conflicting evidence as to whether there’s any actual danger. A risk assessment is more appropriate when there is clear danger and you decide whether it’s a danger you can tolerate. Okay, oxalates are the major component of kidney stones and a major contributor to kidney disease. The largest sources of oxalic acid in the human diet is spinach. Do we do a risk assessment on the kidney disease associated with GMO soy when we know spinach can be detrimental to our kidneys? The two strongest indicators of liver disease are hepatitis and alcoholism, do we do a risk assessment on GMO corn to determine its ill effect on the liver when we know alcohol destroys livers? Even if you show GMO corn destroyed livers at the same rate or in the same manner as alcohol you aren’t going to be able to prevent the production and sale of it any more than you can prevent the production and sale of alcohol or cannibus.
Again, for those that live in fields of the stuff and feed it to their livestock every day. There is no indication that things are not fine.
[quote]and again, when the fuck did i mention cancer?!?!?! and why do you automatically assume we dont wash food? and what leads you to the conclusion that eating non-GMO foods means you are going to ingest so many toxins and so much pesticide that you are going to get cancer? The EPA said the amounts of pesticides ingested from a healthy diet are not dangerous - EDIT-wrong link, have to find the right one
now, can we get back to the topic at hand? what criteria should we use? I assume carcinogen/cancer risk is a big one for you. shall we include liver toxicity? kidney issues? metabolic damage?[/quote]
You misunderstand what I’m saying. If you have a prostate or a cervix cancer of these two body parts will kill you regardless of what you eat. The only way they don’t is if cancer from some other organ or tissue kills you first. The only thing that prevents that from happening is if one of your organs fails to function for other degenerative or traumatic reasons such as Alzheimer’s or getting hit by a bus.
Risk assessment is predicated on the idea that if you avoid all risk you achieve the most desirable outcome which is rather obviously, untrue. If you told me every peanut butter sandwich and cheeseburger took 20 min. off the end of my life, I’d eat them faster. Regardless of the data of the risk assessment, the choices based on the outcome are not very diverse and can be made based on other data. If you said I’m allowed to eat roundup ready soybeans (or the pork/beef/etc. grown off of them) that might contain trace roundup and allow farmers to choose round up… or eat non-GMO soybeans (or the pork/beef/etc. grown off them) that might contain trace 2,4-D or Gramoxone and force farmers to switch from roundup to gramoxone… or eat non-GMO soybeans (or the pork/beef/etc. grown off them) and force farmers to grow organically, the decision is pretty obvious.
[quote]Karado wrote:
Are you and Lucasa generally PRO GMO, or not?
And why?[/quote]
In this particular instance, I am pro progress. We, you, all of us, can no more put GMO foods back ‘in the bottle’ any more than we could flip the off switch on the internet or ban cell phones. Very soon, we will genetically engineer pets, house plants, and eventually people. I don’t state this as a threat, this is a fact. Perpetuating the idea that GMOs are inherently bad would be like asserting that the internet is in inherently bad or a hammer is inherently bad. Sure, there are some/many drawbacks to the internet and hammers, but NSA surveillance and several oppressive dictators in the middle east would still be in power and operating secretively without the internet and homes would go unbuilt without hammers. And while I do share some apprehensive sentiments about the future, both for the internet and GMOs, I feel, in this case, they are grossly misguided.
You don’t seem to have been around enough genuinely toxic shit and seen its/their effects on people and the population at large to know what the hell you’re talking about. Thalidomide causes (i.e. the data is/was never conflicting) birth defects and it was on the market for over a decade. Teratogen testing was never/rarely done before then. Similarly, before glyphosate, the components of Agent Orange were (are) routinely used to control noxious weeds, round up became popular because it was cheaper, just as effective, and less dangerous. I certainly agree that not all progress is good, but in this case, the portrayal of progress as inherently bad or evil is misplaced and there are plenty of anti-progressive causes that could use the extra attention and energy.
I am certainly not 100% pro progress. Generally, I am against embryonic stem cell research. There are much more viable and less controversial sources of cells and better therapies associated with those cells. Further, embryonic cells seem more predisposed to developing into cancerous growth than do other stem cell therapies. I don’t have a problem with research on embryos that would otherwise be discarded, I think it’s a bad idea to start government funding and building medical industry around techniques and technologies that are at the edge of encroaching converting human lives into a commodity.
Finally found the full text of the original study. Reading this and all the comments back from other authors to the editor of the journal. Interested in your opinion lucasa.
Here’s the original study used for the news story: RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize - ScienceDirect
Here’s a couple relevant criticisms from the links above the original article:
Here’s the authors’ response to criticisms:
I’m aware this will probably either kill the thread or turn it into a warzone, but hopefully I can get some educated comments from some of my colleagues on this storm before either one happens…
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Finally found the full text of the original study. Reading this and all the comments back from other authors to the editor of the journal. Interested in your opinion lucasa.
Here’s the original study used for the news story: RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize - ScienceDirect
Here’s a couple relevant criticisms from the links above the original article:
Here’s the authors’ response to criticisms:
I’m aware this will probably either kill the thread or turn it into a warzone, but hopefully I can get some educated comments from some of my colleagues on this storm before either one happens…[/quote]
First, I should clearly reiterate, this and the ‘Obesity’ thread. There is a habit of automatically adopting the precautionary principle, of ‘do no harm’, universally. I don’t wholly reject this notion, but I believe it’s use has become unquestioned and unbalanced.
I haven’t read Seralini et al.'s response to criticism enough to do anything but note that; a) there are a lot of them (I’d love to check the sources). b) He seems to have answers to all of them. c) many of both the questions and answers are contradictory, and d) many/most of these questions are inactionable on a global food production scale. My point, since the beginning of the thread, is of point “d”, Occam’s Razor only exists because, as humans, we are capable of generating an infinite amount of hypotheses from a finite set of data. Infinite hypotheses combined with the reticence induced by the precautionary principle is, effectively, sitting around making up reasons not to do anything.
Seralini himself repeatedly points out that this data points more to life-long or end of life consumption results, have little/no dose dependency, and are rather pointedly Roundup or glyphosate oriented rather than the actual gene modification. These results don’t speak so much to oppressing GMOs as they do to raising the bar on safety (I don’t know that I’ve ever seen end-of-life type studies like this on 2,4-D or paraquat) there’s plenty of data suggesting trace gramoxon causes cancer. On this I agree with him, that it’s probable better for your cancer risk to drink a glass of pure water every morning for the duration of your life rather than a glass of Roundup (I guess we needed a study to tell us). However, as I’ve said before, this isn’t a case of trading potential endocrine disruption or cancer for something better (that’s what was done to this point) the alternatives to glyphosate are no less controversial or less toxic/carcinogenic. The test isn’t really to do no harm, the test is to harm the weeds (or all plants) as severely as possible without harming the rats.
There are two kinds of herbicides; the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses. - Bjarne Stroustrup (obviously modified)
EDIT: To be clear on this sentence;
“are rather pointedly Roundup or glyphosate oriented rather than the actual gene modification” isn’t meant to misconstrue the genetic results or his conclusions. I meant it in the context I stated previously where we would need to lower the thresholds/criteria for everything rather than just lowering it for GMOs or Roundup.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Finally found the full text of the original study. Reading this and all the comments back from other authors to the editor of the journal. Interested in your opinion lucasa.
Here’s the original study used for the news story: RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize - ScienceDirect
Here’s a couple relevant criticisms from the links above the original article:
Here’s the authors’ response to criticisms:
I’m aware this will probably either kill the thread or turn it into a warzone, but hopefully I can get some educated comments from some of my colleagues on this storm before either one happens…[/quote]
First, I should clearly reiterate, this and the ‘Obesity’ thread. There is a habit of automatically adopting the precautionary principle, of ‘do no harm’, universally. I don’t wholly reject this notion, but I believe it’s use has become unquestioned and unbalanced.
I haven’t read Seralini et al.'s response to criticism enough to do anything but note that; a) there are a lot of them (I’d love to check the sources). b) He seems to have answers to all of them. c) many of both the questions and answers are contradictory, and d) many/most of these questions are inactionable on a global food production scale. My point, since the beginning of the thread, is of point “d”, Occam’s Razor only exists because, as humans, we are capable of generating an infinite amount of hypotheses from a finite set of data. Infinite hypotheses combined with the reticence induced by the precautionary principle is, effectively, sitting around making up reasons not to do anything.
Seralini himself repeatedly points out that this data points more to life-long or end of life consumption results, have little/no dose dependency, and are rather pointedly Roundup or glyphosate oriented rather than the actual gene modification. These results don’t speak so much to oppressing GMOs as they do to raising the bar on safety (I don’t know that I’ve ever seen end-of-life type studies like this on 2,4-D or paraquat) there’s plenty of data suggesting trace gramoxon causes cancer. On this I agree with him, that it’s probable better for your cancer risk to drink a glass of pure water every morning for the duration of your life rather than a glass of Roundup (I guess we needed a study to tell us). However, as I’ve said before, this isn’t a case of trading potential endocrine disruption or cancer for something better (that’s what was done to this point) the alternatives to glyphosate are no less controversial or less toxic/carcinogenic. The test isn’t really to do no harm, the test is to harm the weeds (or all plants) as severely as possible without harming the rats.
There are two kinds of herbicides; the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses. - Bjarne Stroustrup (obviously modified)
[/quote]
See, I’d like to get your take on the study and criticisms specifically. Now, I say this not because your previous post was unrelated or any such thing, but rather because I want to get a fellow scientist’s assessment of whether they think Seralini et al. was weak methodologically speaking, made errors or was generally lacking as a scholarly piece.
In other words I’d like to dig into the subject insofar as a brief internet forum and time allows, because I’d like to raise the level of the discussion being had, if that makes sense. In still other words I don’t particularly care about d), I care much more about your assessment of a,b, and c. Assessing point d) is not going to make any difference because conspiracy people will still just shirk the thoughtful answers off, and besides considering that there is global hunger I feel that GMO crops might be a good bit better than starving to death anyways. So I would much rather listen to an educated fellow look at the disagreement happening and give me his take rather than cast pearls before swine so to speak :). No offense intended to people who are against GMOs, as I certainly have a number of concerns as well and I do not think reasonably disagreeing with the current state of GMOs is an indication of inhibited mental function whatsoever…and no offense intended even to the poor souls who read conspiracy theory websites as I am sure they are also nice people in real life.
As I perused the answers to criticisms article I was disappointed to note that many of his criticisms recieved very brief one or two sentence answers which in effect pull the “you didn’t do this” “yes I did” tack I see children make all the time “nu-uh” “Yes huh”. I was hoping for much more substance in some ways.
At any rate the study is noteworthy because it is, as Seralini points out, the first long term feeding study done post 90 days. I feel that warrants some attention, and probably deserved a publication on those grounds…but I remain much concerned with the sheer amount of criticisms. That is an immediate yellow flag to me most times, regardless of what else I know about the author or study (in this case I’ve read once already but will read again in more detail)