Skip to main content

View Diary: Activists Across PA Join Global Monsanto Protest, Could Help Achieve Statewide GMO Labeling (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You might consider... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens

    sending them a critique based on your opinion.
    Perhaps they would be more interested in your findings than I am.
    Perhaps not.
    Maybe you could write a diary about it.

    All sane people detest noise. Mark Twain

    by Man Oh Man on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 04:33:45 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Diaries have already been written about that (0+ / 0-)

      what the agency in question affirmed were the methods, not the results, of the study.

      •  So... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        it was the methods that were used to prompt the EFSA to admit...

        ...that Prof. Seralini was right all along, and that his research methods are, in fact, more robust than currently accepted methods. So, the agency is adopting many of them and making them official standards for modern food safety research, which is a major victory not only for Prof. Seralini's work, but also for the entire independent research community that seeks truth rather than corporate propaganda.
        but the results of the study...
        • Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.

        • Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.

        • Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.

        are wrong?

        All sane people detest noise. Mark Twain

        by Man Oh Man on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 05:00:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, did you read the study? (0+ / 0-)

          the point being that all of those things may have occurred.

          But at the same time the control animals were equally (and in some / many cases) even more tumor-prone and / or in jeopardy of premature death.

          Proving that the results that were obtained were simply an artefact of the researchers using an extremely tumor-prone animal model and not due to any inherent danger from GMO crops.

        •  Wrong. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy

          Re: New EFSA 2-year feeding study guidelines

          To start, the section talking about controls starts by taking from OECD TG 453 standards for long-term studies on chemical effects. For carcinogenicity studies, that standard recommends 50 animals per sex per dose (treatment) group with concurrent control for carcinogenicity studies. If Seralini's study had followed this recommendation and still wanted to do all 9 of their treatment groups, it sounds like they would have needed 50 * 9 = 450 control animals to go with 450 males, then the same for females. Similarly for chronic toxicity, that standard recommends 10 animals per sex per dose group ... again with concurrent control. For Seralini's study that would have been 90 male controls to go with 90 males and 90 female controls to go with 90 females. So right off the bat, we discover that Seralini's study seems to have ignored a pre-existing international recommendation on these kinds of studies!
          I don't know where you pulled the claims you got because you don't cite them properly, but they are bogus.

          “I apologise ...for not making myself clear. I should have said that this new age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilisation --@ProfBrianCox

          by mem from somerville on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 05:33:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure which claims... (0+ / 0-)

            This comes from "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". as published in "Food and Chemical Toxicology, volume 50, no. 11.

            3.1. Mortality

            Control male animals survived on average 624 ± 21 days, whilst females lived for 701 ± 20, during the experiment, plus in each case 5 weeks of age at the beginning and 3 weeks of stabilization period. After mean survival time had elapsed, any deaths that occurred were considered to be largely due to aging. Before this period, 30% control males (three in total) and 20% females (only two) died spontaneously, while up to 50% males and 70% females died in some groups on diets containing the GM maize

            It's the Saralini Study that was validated by the EFSU.

            All sane people detest noise. Mark Twain

            by Man Oh Man on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 05:55:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It must be the phase of the moon or something (0+ / 0-)

            but the anti -GMO types are out in full force today.

            I don't think it would be enlightening to ask, but I am sincerely curious about what they're so terrified about.

      •  The METHODS were the reason the agency in (3+ / 0-)

        question could not accept the results of the Seralini study.  

        If you read the EFSA letter on the Seralini study issued in November 2012, you would know that.  

        Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.
        While it is true that the claims that EFSA affirmed the results of the Seralini study are an overstatement, your claim that the Seralini study was rejected because of its conclusion is also not proved and an overstatement.    

        If EFSA now affirms the methodology and design of the Seralini study, then, your position has a problem.

        Frankly, I oppose the intellectual property protections for a product that can contaminate other non-patented public use assets simply by wind-drift, and then allow the patent holder to sue the contaminatee with copyright infringement simply for being downwind.  I should have a right to sue whomever contaminates my assets for economic damages, in perpetuity.  

        Clearly this current EFSA controversy and the Seralini controversy are evidence that the jury is still out on the health impact of transgenic food in the mind of the public and within the scientific community.   I had held out hope that GMO would provide a solution to a world food distribution problem.  I am not sold that it won't.  But I am unwilling to ignore that the potential exists that corporations may engage in funding scientific research that promotes their bottom line, rather than the public good.  This is a reasonable line of inquiry. I do not know why you would consider Monsanto or Cargill uniquely different from Philip Morris or RJ Reynolds in this respect.  

        And the ad hominem of calling people who have a different point of view than you, and who have reasonable questions "anti-vaxxers" or "unscientific" is not proof of anything except ignoble contempt - it is certainly not science.

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 05:55:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, my position does not have a problem (0+ / 0-)

          as a human being with more than one functioning neuron, I have read the study myself and seen that it is absolutely and completely full of shit.

          I don't need the input of a bunch of European flunkies to evaluate that.

          •  They are not flunkies... (0+ / 0-)

            they are corporate shills that have ties with biotech, food, or pesticide companies.

            All sane people detest noise. Mark Twain

            by Man Oh Man on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 06:15:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You may have more than one functioning (0+ / 0-)

            neuron, but your logic is faulty about EFSA, about both their original position (which you seem to misunderstand the basis of) and their current position (which you now dismiss because you don't agree with the extrapolated outcome).  

            Reasoned opinion, based on open-mindedness and rigor and consistency required to come to a conclusion, is not what you have demonstrated here.  

            I am not certain why you insist on name-calling, rather than reasoned disagreement, or on the primacy of your passionately held opinion (based on two or more neurons) rather than on proof.   What you criticize the no-GMO folks for is what you evidence here in the emotionalism of your argument.  True you win on passion, but that's not science.  And all the name-calling and the requirement that readers accept your claimed credentials as proof of your position still doesn't change the fact that rather than settling the questions, the questions remain open.   This is not a bad thing in scientific inquiry, it's a good thing.   More research using the new standards may prove the original study wrong, or it may not - you can't, we can't, be afraid of the truth, whatever it is.

            The antidote to ignorance is knowledge.  On all sides.

            Have a good evening.

            "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

            by Uncle Moji on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 05:07:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And if you'd (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Man Oh Man

          read the whole blog and followed the appropriate link, you'd have seen they've since switched positions.

          Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from those who are aggressive for what is wrong. - Fighting Bob La Follette

          by ProgressivePatriotPA on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 07:56:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I couldn't agree more that no one should be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Man Oh Man

          accusing those they disagree with here of being anti-science.

          Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from those who are aggressive for what is wrong. - Fighting Bob La Follette

          by ProgressivePatriotPA on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 08:02:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site