Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Oct 24, 2012 in Biology, Culture, Education, Genetics, GMO, Science, Society | 255 comments

A Survey of Long Term GM Food Studies

One of the complaints I hear most is “there are no GM food studies done by independents, it’s all company sponsored”.  The other one I hear a lot is “there are no long term studies”.

Both of these claims are total BS.  Here’s what I found after less than 30 minutes of diligent googling.  I have a link to the article (most of them are paywalled), but I have a portion of the abstract also showing.

First, the long-term studies:

Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review

We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed. (my emphasis)

This is a paywalled article, so I have no idea what studies that they were referring to, but there’s 24 right there.  Half of which are multi-generation… not just multi-year. Here are some more…

Organic and Genetically Modified Soybean Diets: Consequences in Growth and in Hematological Indicators of Aged Rats

This was a really neat article.  It compared organic soybeans with GM soybeans and a control soybean.

There was an organic soy group (OG), a genetically modified soy group (GG), and a control group (CG). All animals received water and diet ad libitum for 455 days. At the end of this period, the weight of the GG group was the same as that of the OG, and both were higher than CG. Protein intake was similar for the OG and GG, which  were significantly lower (p<0.0005) than the CG. The growth rate (GR) of the rats, albumin levels, and total levels of serum protein were comparable for all groups.  Hematocrit (p<0.04) and hemoglobin (p<0.03) for the OG and GG were less than the CG. Although the OG and GG demonstrated reduced hematocrit and hemoglobin, both types of soy were utilized in a way similar to casein. This result suggests that the protein quality of soy is parallel to the standard protein casein in terms of growth promotion but not hematological indicators.

Histochemical and morpho-metrical study of mouse intestine epithelium after a long term diet containing genetically modified soybean

In this study, we investigated the duodenum and colon of mice fed on genetically modified (GM) soybean during their whole life span (1–24 months) by focusing our attention on the histological and ultrastructural characteristics of the epithelium, the histochemical pattern of goblet cell mucins, and the growth profile of the coliform population. Our results demonstrate that controls and GM-soybean fed mice are similarly affected by ageing. Moreover, the GM soybean-containing diet does not induce structural alterations in duodenal and colonic epithelium or in coliform population, even after a long term intake. On the other hand, the histochemical approach revealed significant diet-related changes in mucin amounts in the duodenum. In particular, the percentage of villous area occupied by acidic and sulpho-mucin granules decreased from controls to GM-fed animals, whereas neutral mucins did not change.

A three generation study with geneticallymodified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation

Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the effects of transgenic corn on the rats that were fed through three generations with either GM corn or its conventional counterpart. Tissue samples of stomach, duodenum, liver and kidney were obtained for histopathological examinations. The average diameter of glomeruli, thickness of renal cortex and glomerular volume were calculated and number of affected animals/number of examined animals for liver and kidney histopathology were determined. Amounts of urea, urea nitrogen, creatinine, uric acid, total protein, albumin and globulin were determined; enzyme activities of aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, gamma glutamyltransferase, creatine kinase and amylase were measured in serum samples. No statistically significant differences were found in relative organ weights of rats within groups but there were some minimal histopathological changes in liver and kidney. Changes in creatinine, total protein and globulin levels were also determined in biochemical analysis.

A longterm trial with Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fed geneticallymodified soy; focusing general health and performance before, during and after the parr–smolt transformation

A seven-month feeding trial with geneticallymodified (GM) Roundup Ready® (RRS®) soybeans was conducted on Atlantic salmon (initial weight 40 g) going through the parr–smolt transformation. The maternal near-isogenic soybean line was used as a non-modified control (non-GM), and the two diets were compositionally similar in all analysed nutrients. The performance and health of the fish were assessed by growth, body composition, organ development, haematological parameters, clinical plasma chemistry and lysozyme levels, with samples collected both in the freshwater- and seawater stages. Intestinal indices exhibited some differences between the groups, with the mid-intestine being consistently smaller in the GM fed fish throughout the experiment, while the distal intestine was different at one sampling point, shortly after seawater transfer. Plasma triacylglycerol (TAG) levels were higher in the GM group overall in the experiment, although the magnitude of the difference was larger around the time of seawater transfer compared to later samplings. Despite differences at individual sampling points, there were no differences in total growth during the trial. All other measured parameters showed no diet related differences. Seawater transfer caused changes in gill Na+K+-ATPase activity and plasma chloride ion concentration, as well as in haematological parameters (red blood cell count, RBC, haematocrit, Hct, haemoglobin, Hb) and plasma glucose concentration. However, both diet groups responded similarly regarding these parameters. Our overall conclusion is that the observed effects of feeding Atlantic salmon with GM soy at a 25% inclusion level were minor, and lack of consistency with previous studies suggests that they might be caused by variations in the soy strains rather than the genetic modification per se.

Long term feeding of Bt-corn – a ten-generation study with quails

A ten-generation experiment with growing and laying quails were carried out to test diets with 40 (starter) or 50% (grower, layer) isogenic or transgenic (Bt 176) corn. Feeding of diets containing genetically-modified corn did not significantly influence health and performance of quails nor did it affect DNA-transfer and quality of meat and eggs of quails compared with the isogenic counterpart.

Ten blasted generations.  Wow. I could never do this (I hate birds).

Effects of long-term feeding of genetically modified corn (event MON810) on the performance of lactating dairy cows

A long-term study over 25 months was conducted to evaluate the effects of genetically modified corn on performance of lactating dairy cows. Thirty-six dairy cows were assigned to two feeding groups and fed with diets based on whole-crop silage, kernels and whole-crop cobs from Bt-corn (Bt-MON810) or its isogenic not genetically modified counterpart (CON) as main components. The study included two consecutive lactations. There were no differences in the chemical composition and estimated net energy content of Bt-MON810 and CON corn components and diets. CON feed samples were negative for the presence of Cry1Ab protein, while in Bt-MON810 feed samples the Cry1Ab protein was detected. Cows fed Bt-MON810 corn had a daily Cry1Ab protein intake of 6.0 mg in the first lactation and 6.1 mg in the second lactation of the trial. Dry matter intake (DMI) was 18.8 and 20.7 kg/cow per day in the first and the second lactation of the trial, with no treatment differences. Similarly, milk yield (23.8 and 29.0 kg/cow per day in the first and the second lactation of the trial) was not affected by dietary treatment. There were no consistent effects of feeding MON810 or its isogenic CON on milk composition or body condition. Thus, the present long-term study demonstrated the compositional and nutritional equivalence of Bt-MON810 and its isogenic CON.

Long-term feeding of geneticallymodifiedcorn (MON810) — Fate of cry1Ab DNA and recombinant protein during the metabolism of the dairy cow

The objective of this study was to investigate the fate of transgenic cry1Ab DNA and the encoded Cry1Ab protein during the metabolic degradation of dietary feed components in dairy cows and a potential transfer to blood, milk, feces or urine. A 25-month long-term feeding trial was conducted on thirty-six Simmentaler cows allocated in two groups fed diets containing either geneticallymodifiedcorn (MON810, N = 18) or the near-isogenic corn variety (N = 18). The nutrients and energy contents of both maize varieties were comparable, ensuring equivalent feed conditions. Due to infertility or other production associated diseases, nine cows per group had to be culled and were replaced by heifers. Feed samples were collected weekly, whereas samples for feces, blood and milk were collected monthly, urine samples were taken bimonthly. All samples were analyzed for cry1Ab DNA by means of end-point PCR (feces, blood, urine) and quantitative real-time PCR (feed, milk). A sensitive and highly specific ELISA, optimized to quantify immunoreactive fragments of the Cry1Ab protein, was used to determine the recombinant protein in the collected samples. Non-transgenic feed samples were free of recombinant DNA and protein within the limit of detection, while in transgenic feed samples both, a 206 bp fragment of cry1Ab and immunoreactive fragments of the Cry1Ab protein were present. In contrast, all blood, milk and urine samples were free of recombinant DNA and protein. The cry1Ab gene was not detected in any fecal sample, whereas immunoreactive fragments of the Cry1Ab protein were detected in feces from all cows fed transgenic feed. Milk of dairy cows fed geneticallymodifiedcorn for 25 months should be classified not different from milk of cows fed non-transgenic corn.

Now, I didn’t include the studies that were about the long-term ecological impacts of GM organisms.  Again, there were many that cropped up in my search box, so that’s been done too.

The thing about long term studies is that… well… they take a long time.  Then one must spend a lot of time analyzing the results.

There is a long term study going on right now.  It has been for the last 20+ years.  In America, we have a lot of GM foods.  In Europe, there is almost no GM foods.  Shockingly, Americans have not been dying of GM food poisoning, increased cancer rates (cancer.org reports that over the last 20 years cancer rates in the US have fallen), or allergy deaths (one product had a major allergen issue and it was pulled very quickly).

Now, as for the other bit, “there are no independent studies”.  The website biofortified has provided a list of them, including the funding agency.  Now, these papers cover things from spread of GM DNA to how crops affect biodiversity.  Here’s the link…

to all 126 of them.  They go all the way back to at least 1998.  My understanding is that this list is not being actively updated.  There is another list called GENERA, with over 400 peer-reviewed research papers that all show the safety and value of GM food.  No, I haven’t read them all.

I hope this helps someone.

 

NOTE: This link goes to my critical review of the Seralini paper (which has been retracted by the publisher).

  • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

    I’ve obtained every study you linked and put them in a publically accessible Google Drive folder. Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B_W2c-uzSPBvam84TWhLXzFYUXc/edit

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      You are the bomb!

      Of course, now I have to go read them all and report on them. Sigh. Heck, by now, I ought to be able to publish a review paper of my own. How cool would that be?

    • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Daosorios

      Niiice!!! Now I’ll link to that in the translation of this articule!!! Thanks a lot!

  • Copyleft

    This is interesting, but I doubt scientific facts will have much of an impact at this stage. GM foods have already morphed into a political/religious issue, where people are making judgments based on emotion and are utterly indifferent to facts.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      That’s true, but much like creationism, the anti-GM crowd are doing everything that they can to suppress the actual evidence and make it an emotional issue instead of a rational one.

      I see so many parallels to the creationism arguments here. Cherry-picking data, non-peer-reviewed articles, complete fabrications and quotemines of what actual scientists say. It’s really depressing. I can only handle so much of the straight stuff before I get frustrated and quit… then I get back into it the next day.

  • http://im-skeptical.myopenid.com/ im_skeptical

    I haven’t read much about this, but I understand that some people are concerned not so much about the GM foods themselves, but the fact that that they are produced with greater use of the herbicides and pesticides to which they are designed to be tolerant.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000980613760 Kevin Folta

      There is an incredibly LOWER use of pesticides on Bt crops. This has been demonstrated well in corn and cotton (do a quick PubMed or check NAS/NRC GM crops book, 2010, figs 2-2 and 2-7). Increased herbicide use is a problem, but will be replaced by use of multiple stacked resistances and lower levels of application, along with new technologies to sensitize weeds. The herbicide issue will always be part of ag, GMO or not. At least glyphosate is quite innocuous compared to other heriloom herbicides.

      • http://www.facebook.com/irishgrlk Kay Ryan

        But an incredibly HIGHER use of herbicides on “Round-Up-Ready” crops. Glyphosate is “innocuous?” What planet are YOU living on?

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          Yes, glyphosate is as innocuous a herbicide as you can get.

          U.S. EPA ReRegistration Decision Fact Sheet for Glyphosate (EPA-738-F-93-011) 1993.
          No effect on humans from eating maximally sprayed glyphosate fields with a maximal residue over the lifespan of the human.

          Giesy, John P.; Dobson, Stuart; Solomon, Keith R. (2000). “Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment for Roundup® Herbicide”. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 167: 35–120. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1156-3_2. ISBN 978-0-387-95102-7.

          Practically non-toxic to slightly toxic for amphibians and fish (compare to other herbicides).

          Andréa, Mara Mercedes de; Peres, Terezinha Bonanho; Luchini, Luiz Carlos; Bazarin, Sheila; Papini, Solange; Matallo, Marcus Barifouse; Savoy, Vera Lucia Tedeschi (2003). “Influence of repeated applications of glyphosate on its persistence and soil bioactivity”. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 38 (11): 1329. doi:10.1590/S0100-204X2003001100012.

          Glyphosate is bound to the soil and deactivated quickly (although repeated treatments reduce the ability of the soil to bind the compound).

          In conclusion, living on planet Earth, glyphosate is an excellent herbicide. It kills very specific plants, in a very specific way (that has little to no impact on any animal species). Because of genetic engineering, we can make crops resistant to glyphosate. Which means that we are using less chemical to do the same job and we’re using a chemical that is safer for everyone and everything else.

          Is it perfect? No, of course, not. It’s a compound designed to kill things. So, please suggest an alternative method that has as little impact on the environment, kills weeds as effectively, and doesn’t use manual labor.

        • detribe

          But the point is herbicedes are also used with non-Round Up Ready crops, and they generally are more toxic, get into ground water more, and have higher environmental impact than Round Up

        • hyperzombie

          Would you rather have 2-4-D and Atrazine? Glyphosate has almost eliminated the application of other more harmful herbicides.

          • Mlema

            Whoops! Until now that is – currently pesticide resistant traits are “stacked” and we’re back to 2,4D, dicamba AND glyphosate (due to resistance).

          • hyperzombie

            But they still use less over all, Herbicides are far more expensive than Seed.

        • First Officer

          Total increased herbicide usage is 7% But that is only in raw weight. Total herbicide toxicity is way down.

  • BethAnnErickson

    Fascinating post, fascinating subject.

    After my husband’s heart attack, we’ve adopted a low fat, plant based diet to manage his blood numbers. Works like a charm. BUT all the docs we work with… every single one of them… will NOT vilify GM foods, much to the chagrin of many of our fellow patients. “Eat the carrots, don’t worry if they’re organic,” is the mantra. They keep referencing these studies, but it’s amazing how when even presented with evidence, many people will not listen.

    So, my family and I eat plain food, non organic, what you get at a regular store and we’re quite the mavericks in our group.

    Thanks for the great information. I’m bookmarking it. :)

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      Thanks. I hope to get to those research reports from Ed soon. Stay tuned.

    • http://www.facebook.com/irishgrlk Kay Ryan

      BethAnnErickson, MDs know shockingly NOTHING about nutrition — NOTHING about food. They are not taught in medical school, and they don’t learn it after medical school. If you rely on any MD for nutritional information, then you are sadly and unfortunately as uninformed as they are.

      • BethAnnErickson

        Thanks for your comment, Kay. I agree, most docs know shockingly little about nutrition.

  • Pingback: A Survey of Long Term GM Food Studies | CookingPlanet

  • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Daosorios

    I just finished translating this article into Spanish!!! Thanks a lot!!

  • Paulo Andrade

    Terrific post. Criigen considered Snell´s paper trash (as expected) For two main reasons: it was published just before Séalini submitted his infamous paper and it did not mention any of Séralini´s own misleading papers.

    On NK603 and the largest “long term study” ever, including anima nobili, pelase access http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2012/10/the-largest-experiment-with-human.html (were I linked the new info found here and in your excellent comments)

  • DSRho

    I’ve never really understood why people are concerned about the health effects of GMOs. All food has genes, and the targeted genes in GMOs have nothing to do with animal metabolism. So, the fear of health effects from GMOs has always seemed like scientifically illiterate b.s. to me.

    THAT SAID, I oppose many GMOs on the grounds that they’re used to facilitate increased usage of herbicides, pesticides, and the like. I want less toxic chemicals in my diet and the environment, thank you very much.

    • Kevin Folta

      DSRho, if you want fewer chemicals in your food you should like GM technology. Bt in corn means fewer insecticide sprays. Worse, these are usually applied when the ears are on the stalks. Bt corn and cotton cut insectide use by 50-70% (Nat’l Acad Sci 2010). Herbicides are applied early, right after emergence on soy, canola and corn. The herbicide is glyphosate, it is long gone by the time the crop is yielding. Plus, glyphosate it not so toxic. Check it out, I think you’d be surprised.

      • DSRho

        Yes I know Kevin. I’m on your side on this issue. Read more carefully.

        • Kevin Folta

          I understood… no problem. GM uses less insecticide. More herbicide, but glyphosate, which is reasonably wimpy stuff.

          • DSRho

            Close but leaving out the conclusion: some GMOs are better for the environment, others are worse, and it’s a mistaketo paint them all with the same brush.

    • hyperzombie

      THAT SAID, I oppose many GMOs on the grounds that they’re used to facilitate increased usage of herbicides, pesticides, and the like. I want less toxic chemicals in my diet and the environment, thank you very much.

      GMOs use less herbicide. Think about it, why would a farmer pay more for seed and have to use more pesticides? That would be so counterproductive.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        And, of course, the herbicides and pesticides used are MUCH less toxic that pesticides and herbicides used in organic farming.

        They are much more targeted too. Unlike the pesticides and herbicides used in organic farming which will kill anything.

  • Pingback: Allergic to Science-Proteins and Allergens in Our Genetically Engineered Food | Florida State Tribune

  • Tim Anderson

    The idea that one strain of GMO’d plant might become an Irish potato disaster seems dangerous to me, especially if it’s corn. The real problem I have with GMO’s is the fascist level of personal freedom lost with their contracts. Monsanto is the biggest abuser of the 4th amendment I’ve ever seen (well except for the US govt.). Once you use Monsanto corn for instance, you’re required to allow them all access to your field for eternity, so they can see if you’re using their corn. They have a right to your records to see if you used pesticide, or herbicide. If a farmer who plants Monsanto corn contaminates another farm across the road, it’s not Monsanto who gets sued, their immune, it’s the farmer who planted the GMO crop who has to pay damages. I find that as disturbing as the potential health and food preparation risks.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      There’s an interesting article on biofortified from a farmer who approves of these practices and explains why. Biofortified appears to be down right now or I’d give you a link.

      Honestly though, we accept that when we purchase digital copies of software or a book, that we don’t own the book or the software and the owner/publisher can revoke our right to it whenever we want. Technically, if Microsoft came to your door and said, “You still have Windows 98 running on a computer. Delete it.” Legally you would have to.

      Anyway, the people I’m seeing argue against all these practices are not conventional farmers. They are either organic farmers (which shouldn’t be involved anyway) or non-farmers (which shouldn’t be involved anyway).

      I’m not a huge fan of Monsanto’s practices. Don’t get me wrong. But then, I’m not a fan of a lot of business practices (or government practices for that matter). But no one asked me and I don’t have standing to get involved in a court case.

      If a farmer wants to get involved with Monsanto, then that’s the freedom to do so. If there wasn’t a business benefit to it, then they wouldn’t do it. There obviously is a business benefit (higher yield, less spraying, less loss due to pests, etc).

      • RockIslandLine

        “Honestly though, we accept that when we purchase digital copies of
        software or a book, that we don’t own the book or the software and the
        owner/publisher can revoke our right to it whenever we want.
        Technically, if Microsoft came to your door and said, “You still have
        Windows 98 running on a computer. Delete it.” Legally you would have
        to.”

        We do not accept that. Corporations try to force it anyway.

      • Mlema

        I think what a lot of people object to is: you put a gene you own into a plant, and now you own what happens to that plant’s seed. Not as big of a problem in the US, but bad deal for most of the world. If you breed my goat, do you now have control over it’s milk and offspring?

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          That’s not nearly as controversial as you might think. Many breeding programs have restrictions or clauses about how the offspring are handled. A friend of mine is a breeder of borzoi.

          She has a contract with another breeder for champion sperm. Her contract is that she pays a lot of money to have full rights to the offspring. But some will say that the owner of the male dog gets first pick of the litter. Some will say that the male owner gets 10-25 of all income from sale of the pups. Etc.

          If you spend tens of millions in research, you want to recoup the cost. I would also suggest you talk to farmers who actually purchase seed every year (i.e. any modern farmer). They aren’t complaining.

          • Mlema

            That’s a completely different situation. And the vast majority of farmers in the world are not in the US, and don’t receive national subsidies to grow commodities (where biotech has focused it’s development. And yeah, a lot of farmers ARE complaining. They have to be careful about how they do that.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Why do they have to be careful? That makes no sense. They are paying for seed. Getting said seed. Planting and harvesting the crop.

            It’s not a gag order to not talk about what they do.

            And it’s not a completely different situation. It’s a client/vendor contract. If they don’t like what’s in the contract, then they don’t have to buy the seed. They can buy seed from any number of other GM crop vendors, any number of organic crop vendors, or any number of vendors of seed that is nearly historical. Of course, without the GM traits, then they have to spend more on pesticide and herbicide, reducing their yield, and putting themselves in danger of a toxic spill.

            National subsidies is a US thing, but all the seed companies of which I am aware sell internationally, except for GM crops in those countries that have banned them for some reason.

          • Guest

            The point is: technology contracts aren’t the same as seed patents. Many more farmers have been sued by Monsanto than the big cases you hear about (that Monsanto always wins). The cases where farmers have been wrongly sued have been settled, with conditions of silence. But I don’t want to be pushed into extremism. Monsanto is a business and farmers are the main customers. Good enough.

            Going back to the comment: you said that IP contracts aren’t controversial. The comment said they are, and I agree. And it still has nothing to do with dog breeding. It’s about food ownership in countries where seed ownership is food security.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            And your evidence for all this is?

            So what if Monsanto is the evilist company on the planet? Attack them. Monsanto is not GMO. It’s barely in the top five of GMO producing ag companies. Monsanto also sells tons (literally) of conventional seed. Do they sell the conventional seed under the same requirements? I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that they do.

            What’s the point of all this?

            Monsanto is a company. They do business. Their business is selling seeds and supporting products. If you don’t like the companies practices then feel free to sue them, berate them, whatever. I don’t care.

            GM is a process. It is actually a number of different processes that have been used for decades to improve our lives. Everything from insulin to food. It is well understood and extensively tested. I’m willing to bet that you cannot find a single case of GMO-based allergens causing any reaction in the last 15 years.

            Learn the difference.

            I also expect you to provide references (court documents, not blog posts) about the “many more farmers”. How many? In the US? Worldwide? What were the suits over? How were they settled?

            Go ahead, I really do want to hear this.

            But it doesn’t have anything to do with GM products. And it never will.

          • Mlema

            did you delete my reply here?

          • Mlema

            here’s the crux of it: IP contracts do not equal seed patents. Outside the US, seed ownership equals food security.

            And regarding “gagged” farmers – Monsanto sues a lot more farmers than the ones you hear about. Those who settle when Monsanto is in the wrong are typically required to keep silent on the details of the case.

          • Mlema

            IP contracts aren’t equavalent to seed patents. In many countries seed ownership means food security

          • Mlema

            Farmers sued by Monsanto, when they settle, typically have to agree not to discuss the case under terms of the settlement

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            So you have no idea how many such lawsuits there are and no evidence that they even exist. Convenient.

          • Mlema

            Well, I’ve replied here 3 times and they’ve not appeared – so either they’re being deleted or there’s something wrong with the site.

          • Mlema

            hmm – that one appeared – so what’s going on? Here’s what I said: seed patents aren’t the same as IP contracts. And in many countries seed ownership and diversity means food security. Re: Farmers and Monsanto. Monsanto sues a lot of farmers who end up settling when they’re not necessarily found guilty of anything. But a lot of times they have to agree to not discuss the case.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            There’s still court records of the filed suit? Where are they?

          • Mlema

            ok – that’s weird. I swear I couldn’t find this conversation before I posted my lengthy reply under another comment. Sorry!

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            It happens. I have never deleted a comment. I checked the spam folder in Disqus and nothing there.

    • Curt Hannah

      I should mention that while there might be one transgene for herbicide or insect resistance, that gene is incorporated into lots of cultivars and varieties. Hence, genetic diversity is maintained. Also, I should mention that seed companies like Monsanto do not have free access to farmer’s field. Entry requires a court order and court orders are not issued without preliminary evidence for saved seed. Also, Monsanto does not sue for inadvertent contamination of a farmer’s field. Monsanto has stated this publicly and inspections of court records from saved seed cases bears this out. And as far as I know no GM farmer that been successfully sued by a non-GMO farmer for pollen contamination or seed contamination for that matter.

      • Tim Anderson

        I would suggest you watch the documentary “David vs. Monsanto”. Also I’ve read a number of stories where contracts with Monsanto have been divulged and they certainly do not support your POV. Do you work for Monsanto?

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          Tim, just a point. Calling someone a Monsanto Shill (or implying such) is not a good debate tactic.

          I would encourage you to look to who sponsors things like the various GMO labeling laws and why.

        • Curt Hannah

          Good morning Tim,

          I made a number of points and it is not clear to me which point you are referring to. If you would be so kind as to give me specific situations, I would be happy to see what I can find out.

          My experience with GM technology comes from two sources. First I am a professor at the University of Florida and joined the faculty in 1974. My laboratory works on genes that enhance yield under hot conditions. We use transgenic technology to test variants we isolate of plant genes expressed in bacteria. Our work is supported by the US Department of Agriculture and the National Science Foundation. Given the predicted 9 billion people, climate change and loss of agricultural acreage, I can think of no honorable goal than helping people throughout the world have enough food to eat. We need all the tools we can generate and certainly transgenic crops fall into this category.

          My other experience with GM plants comes from being an active participant in the family farming operations in Indiana. We use GM crops. This has reduced our carbon footprint, reduced soil erosion, eliminated our need for spraying crops with insecticides and allowed the use of less toxic herbicides. These are good things for the environment and the generations to come.

          What is your profession?

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Curt, would you be interested in writing a guest post for Smilodon’s Retreat regarding your work?

          • Curt Hannah

            Sure. Give me details (length, etc you would like)

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            You can send me an e-mail directly using the contact link above.

            My posts usually run between 600-1200 words. And I like references to research articles. But I think that an overview of the research and why it’s important would be great.

          • Curt Hannah

            Hi again, Having trouble finding your email address. Could you look me up on the University of Florida directory and email me there.

            thanks.

          • Tim Anderson

            Curt…perhaps you should watch the documentary first before you make claims that court orders are always required. We can’t have any meaningful discussion until you do that. Another debate tactic that’s even worse is not answering a question that’s valid. Yes or No…have you worked for Monsanto in either an advisory capacity or as a direct employee? This is completely legit inquiry. Let me say that your work in drought augmentation of seed to help out in places in Africa and other arid regions of the world is a benefit to mankind overall. I am not a biologist…I’m a political consultant…and the heavy handed tactics of Monsanto bother me. So I’m not looking at this as an agriculture problem, but a political one…here’s some of what I’ve read. You can google the rest.

            “When planting genetically modified seed, farmers (called “growers” is this context) are required to abide by an adhesion contract (a “GMO contract”) that can include
            some very unfavorable terms. Signing such an agreement will bind the grower to its terms, whether or not the grower has read or understood said terms. The Monsanto GMO contract (Monsanto being one of the largest GMO seed
            supplier) takes things a step further: the grower need not even sign the contract to be bound by it. The Monsanto Technology/Stewardship agreement provides that the grower agrees to the contract simply by opening a bag of seed.

            Signing a GMO contract does not just bind a grower to the contract itself. Growers can also be held to supplementary “Technology Use Guides” that accompany such contracts. A
            Technology Use Guide is an often lengthy document which specifies how the seeds are to be planted, including such issues as pest control and compliance with environmental standards. Monsanto publishes a single 60-page Technology Use Guide which includes the requirements for many different seed products. Other companies publish shorter guides for single products or a more limited range of products.

            GMO contracts also ban growers from saving seed produced by their GMO crops. This forces them to buy new seed every season, unlike traditional crops that can be replanted freely. The contracts provide for severe penalties if growers save their seed. This can be particularly harsh in the case of growers who never see the contract, but are bound merely by opening a bag of seed, as they may save their seed and incur penalties inadvertently.

            Another troubling aspect of GMO contracts are the inspection provisions. GMO contracts may allow companies to inspect a grower’s land and business records to ensure compliance with the contract and accompanying Guide. These inspections may be authorized by the contract itself, or specified in the guide, or both. In Monsanto’s case, for instance, inspections are provided for in the Guide, which is 60 pages long. A grower could easily miss these provisions, buried as they are in a
            lengthy document, and thus could unwittingly open his land to corporate agents.”

            I hope this clears up where I’m coming from in my POV.

          • Curt Hannah

            Dear Tim,

            Thank you for clarifying where your concerns are. I can understand where someone not well versed in plant agriculture and plant breeding could have those concerns.

            Let me point out some facts relevant to the points you raise. First,
            the ability to legally protect plant materials has a long history in this
            country. The Plant Patent Act came into law in 1930 and the Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Act was ratified in 1970. These laws allowed developers of superior plants to protect their materials from unauthorized propagation. In addition some non-GMO plant material is protected under the utility patents, the kinds of patents most of us are aware of. Hence, the ability to legally
            protect plants from unauthorized growing predates the introduction of transgenes (1996) by some 66 years.

            Farmers learned in the 30s and 40s not to save corn seed for replanting. By this time, corn seed companies were exploiting the phenomenon of heterosis or hybrid vigor. Saved seed exhibited inbreeding depression in that their performance was greatly reduced compared to the parental seed. Hence, corn seed saving was simply not economically smart. Hybrid vigor is not nearly as pronounced in soybeans and hybrid soybean seed production is more problematic and very expensive. Hence, farmers saved soybean seed (that was not covered by a PVP or a utility patent) and would buy new seed only if a superior variety became available or if they had seed quality problems. Because seed companies sold little soybean seed, they could not afford to put much research into them and, as a consequence, historic yields did not increase.

            This changed when transgenes were introduced. Note that the only difference between GM soybeans and conventional soybeans not covered by a PVP or utility patent is the presence of a patented gene in the newer soybean. Because it was patented and because the research and regulatory costs were so high, seed companies limited farmers to one generation of propagation. This is no different than a software company limiting the number of computers you can download a particular program on to.

            Concerning the tech transfer agreement that farmers sign, yes the farmer is responsible for the document he/she signs. I don’t sign
            important documents until I read them and sometimes I have my lawyer look at them before signing. I suspect you do the same thing. I also note that the containers holding the seed sold to the grower contain labels specifying the particular patents covering the seed. I have yet to meet a productive farmer who didn’t understand he/she could not save seed they produce for replanting.

            Our home farm is run by my nephew and he has never mentioned having an unwelcomed visit from a seed company or a request to share his records. He has total freedom concerning the unsaved seed he plants and how he plants it so long as he follows rules of the EPA. He and he alone adjusts the seed spacing and depth on the planters. He and he alone decides when spraying is done and what is in the spray tank. My nephews is no exception and, given that 90% plus of the corn and soybeans raised in this country are transgenic, I must surmise that very few farmers have a problem with the rules and paperwork.

            Some EPA mandated rules do come into play with the insect resistance genes Monsanto and other companies sell. In order to minimize insect resistance to the BT proteins, EPA has mandated that farmers maintain a refuge area where BT containing plants
            are NOT planted. The idea is that insects containing a recessive gene for resistance will mate with non-mutant, and BT susceptible insects coming from the refuge area. Progeny will be
            susceptible and hence killed by the BT protein. It is my understanding that EPA has mandated that Monsanto police this.

            I am aware of some situations where farmers did not use a refuge, the farm was not monitored and resistant insects multiplied. This was unfortunate. I should also note that selection for resistance (be it insects or weeds) occurs regardless of whether the gene giving the plant resistance is transgenic or natural. This is simply Darwinian evolution. Interestingly, seed companies are now mixing
            seeds of susceptible plants in with the resistant seed. This, then, should negate the need for a farmer planting a refuge area.

            I hope this answers some of your concerns.

            Finally, a bit of senior mentoring:
            starting conversations out with demands and innuendos usually does not lead to productive conversations. I thought I had answered my employment history in my previous posting. You are welcome to check this out on my website at the University of Florida if you like. In the spirit of reciprocity and full disclosure, please provide me with like information.

            As far as consulting, in my 45 years plus in this business, I believe I have consulted for all the major seed companies and most of the minor ones. This of course includes Monsanto. To your point and much more importantly, I eat, my loved ones eat, my children eat and most importantly my grandchildren eat!! If I thought for a moment there was a problem with these crops I would be the loudest critic. To imply that I am a shill for Monsanto is not only insulting but also these types of attacks do your cause no good. It has lost its flavor (there are only so many times people listen to this crap) and is clearly a sign of someone frustrated when confronted with the facts.

            I hope my points are clear and I look forward to a continued productive conversation.

  • TheOne

    Not very helpful actually. 3 years isnt a long time and where is your paper trail to prove these studies arent funded by people with interests in pushing GMO foods on us? What are these studies really saying? Because they say so? Actually it was helpful in showing we really dont know and are relying on infant tests done on animals that may or may not translate to actual human results. I look at this country over run with self-induced issues (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, behavioral issues to name a few) and wonder how people are deluded to think we are doing better…

  • Pingback: Notorious Séralini GMO Cancer Rat Study Retracted, Ugly Legal Battle Looms | Truth About Trade & Technology

  • Pingback: Séralini threatens lawwuit in wake of retraction of infamous GMO Cancer Rat Study | Today Health Channel

  • TJtruthandjustice

    Long-term studies on HUMANS = ZERO.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx#.Uqs8BOLWv5A

      Except for the fact that the US has been eating and using GM crops for the last 20 years.

      BTW: You do know that kind of research is illegal right?

      • TJtruthandjustice

        That’s not true at all. Human trials are done all the time. Within the past twenty years, autoimmune disorders have skyrocketed. Since GMO products are unregulated and unlabeled and unstudied, we’ll never know if there is a correlation, but any independent-thinking, reasonable person should certainly have questions about it.

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          Different kind of trials. Go ahead, see if you can find a cohort of humans willing to eat nothing but corn for two years. It’s not nutritionally safe and therefore will not happen. There’s a reason rats and other animals are used in these studies.

          Unstudied? really? I guess that shows just how “skeptical” you are.

          Skepticism isn’t disagreement with a subject. Skepticism is be agnostic on a subject UNTIL EVIDENCE IS IN. There are well over 400 studies in the GENERA database (with author affiliations, so you can stop with the conspiracy theories). There is nothing in any of those studies that would indicate that GM herbicide resistance or pesticides can even get into human’s (or any animal’s) body. There’s no evidence that these toxins are harmful to humans.

          Even the (now retracted) Seralini study showed that GM-fed animals died at a lower rate than non-GM-fed animals.

          I would also encourage you to examine, in detail, the proponents of the various labeling laws and who supplied them with funds. In both big cases (California and Washington), the money was supplied by organic food farmers and farming organizations. In both cases, the labeling ONLY appeared in grocery stores. A bag of chips in the grocery store, label required. Exact same bag of chips in the deli next door? no label required.

          That’s not a law to protect and inform citizens. That’s a law designed to promote one industry at the expense of another industry. Economic competition by legislation as it were.

          But don’t take my word for any of this. In my writings I’ve given dozens of links to peer-reviewed research. Go read them for yourself. They would certainly be more scientific than the Daily Mail.

          • TJtruthandjustice

            The Daily Mail article referred to a study published in a scientific journal, as I previously pointed out. I’d encourage YOU to look at the revolving door between Monsanto and the FDA. If you aren’t skeptical about THAT, you aren’t a skeptic, but something else entirely. I’d also encourage you to look at the recent research review out of MIT looking at the negative consequences of the widespread use of RoundUp herbicide. Manufactured by Monsanto, RoundUp goes hand-in-hand with Monsanto GMOs. The study is cited in the following article that was published by Prevention Magazine, which I assume you will use to discount the research. Shooting the messenger is a common tactic used by PR people on a mission.

            ____________________________________________________________

            The Latest Science On Roundup: It’s not doing your gut any favors

            By Leah Zerbe, Prevention

            America’s favorite weed killer could be the driving force behind some of modern society’s most common health ailments, according to new research examining more than 300 studies. The new review looked at research investigating glyphosate, the active ingredient in the popular herbicide Roundup.

            Once called “safer than aspirin,” glyphosate’s reputation for safety
            isn’t holding up to the scrutiny of independent research. More and more non-industry-funded scientists are finding links between the chemical and all sorts of problems, including cell death, birth defects, miscarriage, low sperm counts, DNA damage, and more recently, destruction of gut bacteria.

            Here’s the quick backstory: Since chemical companies invented genetically engineered seeds designed to withstand heavy sprayings
            of glyphosate, global use of Roundup and related weed killers has jumped to nearly 900 million pounds applied annually. Glyphosate is a systemic chemical, meaning once sprayed, it travels up inside of the plants that people and animals eat. As more farm fields converted to GMO crops, federal regulators quietly increased the levels of Roundup allowed in your food, something that could be particularly tragic for your gut.

            Citing recent studies, review coauthor Stephanie Seneff, PhD, senior
            research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, explains how glyphosate acts as a potent bacteria-killer in the gut, wiping out delicate beneficial microflora that help protect us from disease.

            Harmful pathogens like Clostridium botulinum, Salmonella, and E. coli are able to survive glyphosate in the gut, but the “good guys” in your digestive tract, protective microorganisms, bacillus and lactobacillus, for instance, are killed off.

            Even the developer of Roundup—Monsanto—seems to know this. About 10 years ago, the company registered a patent for glyphosate’s use as an antimicrobial agent.

            Eating food laced with Roundup could be setting us up for some major
            health problems, some researchers suggest, citing that power to kill gut
            flora. “When you disturb something in nature, there aren’t any voids,” explains retired pathologist and veteran glyphosate researcher Don Huber, PhD, professor emeritus at Purdue University. “You take the good guys out and the bad guys rule. And that’s what’s happening.”

            This nightmare in your digestive tract can spark other problems,
            including “leaky gut,” where the protective lining of the gut is compromised, allowing for toxins and bacteria to enter the bloodstream. This causes the body to send off an immune response to attack the wayward bacteria, potentially sparking autoimmune diseases.

            But there’s more to the glyphosate-gut conundrum “The most important piece of the story is the disruption of serotonin in the gut,” says Seneff. She says glyphosate can disrupt the gut’s ability to create tryptophan, the building block of serotonin, an important neurotransmitter linked to happiness and well-being. Low serotonin levels have been linked to suicide, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and other ailments.

            Not only is glyphosate hampering tryptophan production in your gut,
            but it’s also lowering levels in plants, causing even more deficiency,
            Seneff says.

            Other scientists say the latest research could help frame new
            studies. “It is a very broad, comprehensive, thoroughly researched
            paper, and is an important paper in many respects because it suggests
            many testable hypotheses,” says Warren Porter, PhD, professor of
            environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “It is
            also consistent with some new state-of-the-art work we have been doing on domestic animals.”

            While the latest review study is valid, it also makes big leaps in
            terms of connecting the dots, according to some researchers who say the new ideas presented in the analysis will need to be tested in future
            studies. “As a thought piece to stimulate thinking, it serves a useful
            function, but should not be used as ‘proof’ of problem,” explains
            Charles Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University’s
            Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources.

            Not willing to be a human guinea pig as the science of glyphosate
            safety plays out? Here’s how to make sure your meals aren’t laced with
            the common chemical:

            • Choose organic. Roundup and other chemical pesticides and fertilizers are banned for use in organic agriculture. Instead, organic farmers focus on building healthy soil to support the growth of healthy plants. To find local sustainable farmers, search LocalHarvest.org.

            • Demand GMO labeling. Since most GMOs currently approved—and ones in the development pipeline—are designed to tolerate chemicals sprayings (the same companies sell the seeds and the chemicals), labeling GMOs can help us make more informed choices as consumers.

            • Eat fewer processed foods. The main glyphosate-laden foods that wind up in the food supply are corn, soy, and canola. Since these ingredients readily wind up in about 80 percent of processed foods, eating more whole foods (or choosing organic processed foods) can help lower your exposure to the chemical.

            Published May 2013, Prevention | Updated May 2013

            http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/crazy-new-research-roundup-weed-killer

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            The revolving door at Monsanto (whatever that is) has nothing to do with the science. You see, science is self-correcting. I note that you didn’t address the issues I raised.

            I do find it interesting how you think someone in MIT’s AI laboratory is more knowledgeable about gut bacteria than all the researchers who actually do experiments with gut bacteria and GM foods.

            I also find it interesting how Dr. Huber isn’t interested in doing any actual science…. in fact, he specifically avoids it. http://www.biofortified.org/2013/11/dr-huber-turns-down-my-generous-offer/

            Finally, you do understand that organic farmers SPRAY Bt toxin on their crops right? You haven’t acknowledged that yet. I want to make sure you’re aware of it.

            As usual, it appears that the anti-GMO craze (which didn’t exist even 10 years ago, when GMOs had already been around for decade) is REALLY an attempt to increase the market share for organic farmers.

          • TJtruthandjustice

            Yes, I’m aware that BT toxin is used as an insecticide, on the EXTERIOR of plants, where it can be washed off. It isn’t INFUSED INTERNALLY IN EVERY SINGLE CELL of the plant as with GMO crops. Any reasonable, unbiased person would immediately know the difference. The MIT study is a meta-analysis of studies of Roundup that you claim don’t exist. You refer to Dr. Huber, but he wasn’t even involved in the study that I cited, but simply provided commentary for the Prevention article. You clearly seem to be more of a spin-meister than someone who is honestly interested in the search for truth on this issue. Do you now or have you ever worked for the GMO industry in any capacity? Have you ever profited from GMOs?

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            And yet, it’s still SPRAYED and covers the ground and isn’t as controllable, which means that the actual human dangerous versions may be present. But you don’t care that the TOXIN is very, very different from the DNA. Because those genes aren’t expressed in the FRUIT of the plants, now are they? Which means, even if the toxin was harmful to humans (it isn’t), then humans still wouldn’t be eating it.

            Round-up is a non-toxic HERBICIDE. It literally cannot have any effect on humans. The commercially important enzyme that glyphosate inhibits, EPSPS, is found only in plants and micro-organisms. EPSPS is not present in animals, which instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diet.

            Let me ask, is any of the studies references from Seralini?

            Again, you link (and paste) a popular article. Have you read the meta analysis? Have you read this article?

            And the answer to your last two questions are both “No”.

            You really need to read something other than anti-GMO websites.

          • TJtruthandjustice

            The MIT study was published in Entropy, a peer-reviewed publication and received broad coverage in numerous US media outlets. You apparently lack an understanding of the importance of flora for human gut health. You are a shill, plain and simple.
            _______________________

            Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers-U.S. study

            By Carey Gillam

            April 25 (Reuters) – Heavy use of the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.

            The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of “glyphosate,” the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.

            Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. Samsel is a former private environmental government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

            “Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,” the study says.

            We “have hit upon something very important that needs to be taken seriously and further investigated,” Seneff said.

            Environmentalists, consumer groups and plant scientists from several countries have warned that heavy use of glyphosate is causing problems for plants, people and animals.

            The EPA is conducting a standard registration review of glyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate use should be limited. The study is among many comments submitted to the agency.

            Monsanto is the developer of both Roundup herbicide and a suite of crops that are genetically altered to withstand being sprayed with the Roundup weed killer.

            These biotech crops, including corn, soybeans, canola and sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres in the United States annually. Farmers like them because they can spray Roundup weed killer directly on the crops to kill weeds in the fields without harming the crops.

            Roundup is also popularly used on lawns, gardens and golf courses.

            Monsanto and other leading industry experts have said for years that glyphosate is proven safe, and has a less damaging impact on the environment than other commonly used chemicals.

            Jerry Steiner, Monsanto’s executive vice president of sustainability, reiterated that in a recent interview when questioned about the study.

            “We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has. It has been very, very extensively studied,” he said.

            Of the more than two dozen top herbicides on the market, glyphosate is the most popular. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            If I’m a shill, then I want more money.

            I think we’re done. Run along.

          • TJtruthandjustice

            You have a blatant pro-GMO bias and all of your arguments begin with a conclusion (GMOs are safe) and work backwards. Hey, might as well get paid for what you do anyway!

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            They aren’t my conclusions. They are the conclusions of the researchers who actually do this work. I agree with them because every research paper that I’ve read that is against GM has some significant unanswered issues and the research papers that support the conclusion that GMOs are safe don’t have those issues.

            You can whine and yell at me all you want. It doesn’t change the simple fact that the vast majority of research shows that there is no danger to GM crops.

            It also doesn’t change the fact that anti-GMO legislation is a product of the organic food industry.

            If you don’t want to eat GM food, then don’t buy anything but organic (realizing that the manure used in organic commercial farms comes from cows that have eaten GM soy and corn). It’s that simple.

          • TJtruthandjustice

            No, what you do is highlight the research that fits your conclusion and reject the research that doesn’t. That’s not science. It’s spin. I don’t know if you’re an academic or a scientist or whatever, but I’d take the word of the recent peer-reviewed MIT research about Round-Up over your prognostications any day of the week.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            All the while ignoring the problems with that study because it supports your point of view. Fair enough. You’re doing the same thing you vilify me for.

          • TJtruthandjustice

            You haven’t pointed out any problems with the study. Here’s the deal. My opinion is that in the face of the obvious and numerous conflicts of interest between FDA regulators, federal lawmakers, and Monsanto, the rational response is to be MISTRUSTFUL of the regulatory process. For over a decade, public health advocates have been arguing that Tricolsan is bad for the environment and for human health, with industry shills reassuring us all the while, pointing to their corporate-sponsored studies showing that it’s a perfectly acceptable anti-bacterial agent, and with federal regulators looking the other way. Finally, years later, the FDA is yielding to public pressure and has proposed a ban on many uses of Tricolsan. The use of Round-Up is growing exponentially in the U.S. How much damage to the environment and to human health will we suffer due to the efforts of profit-driven corporations and their lackies and legislative whores?

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            The problem is that you are applying your anger to EVERYTHING.

            The FDA has nothing to do with research papers. Federal lawmakers have nothing to do with research papers. Monsanto publishes some, but you are free to look at the authors statements of CoI (conflict of interest) and see who employs the scientists.

            You are simply letting anger over one thing cloud your judgement on an entire issue. What you are doing is roughly equivalent to being worried about snakes, therefore you napalm the entire forest.

            If you want to look at a study done by a AI researcher, that’s fine. I can’t stop you. I can only continue to point out that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of research papers out right now that show that there are zero problems with GM food. The GENERA database at biofortified has them.

            I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is. You can continue to cherry pick your data or you can read them all and make an informed decision.

  • TJtruthandjustice

    Why do you describe yourself as a “skeptic”? The entire pro-GMO argument is based on the claim that the toxins implanted in GMO crops are destroyed in the gut and rendered harmless. This has been proven to be false:
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies

    Daily Mail, May 20, 2011

    Toxins implanted into GM food crops to kill pests are reaching the bloodstreams of women and unborn babies, alarming research has revealed.

    A landmark study found 93 per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 percent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of the chemicals.

    Millions of acres in North and South America are planted with GM corn containing the toxins, which is fed in vast quantities to farm livestock around the world – including Britain.

    However, it is now clear the toxins designed to kill crop pests are reaching humans and babies in the womb – apparently through food.

    It is not known what, if any, harm this causes but there is speculation it could lead to allergies, miscarriage, abnormalities or even cancer.

    To date the industry has always argued that if these toxins were eaten by animals or humans they would be destroyed in the gut and pass out of the body, thus causing no harm.

    Food safety authorities in Britain and Europe have accepted these assurances on the basis that GM crops are effectively no different to those produced using conventional methods.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-93-unborn-babies.html

    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      When was the daily mail ever considered a peer-reviewed research journal? Let me know that and we’ll talk.

      You know what I don’t see in that article? An actual link (or even a title) to said study. Yes, I’m skeptical of this claim, with no backup, no evidence, not even a link to the study.

      Especially considering that hundreds of studies haven’t found anything.

      Oh, and just so you know, organic farmers use Bt toxin as well… except they spray it on crops. Which means it’s actually on the fruit, unlike GM crops which the gene isn’t turned on in the fruit.

      Oh, and just so you know, Bt is not toxic to humans. Actually a form of Bt toxin can be dangerous to humans, but the GM varieties can’t because they can’t produce the version that is toxic… unlike Bt toxin sprayed on organic crops, which could potentially have the dangerous version because of uncontrolled bacterial strains in the production process.

      Daily Mail… wow

      • TJtruthandjustice

        Apparently, you are quick to defend GMOs, but also don’t read very carefully. It’s all very clearly included in the article. This is independent, peer-reviewed research published in Reproductive Toxicology:

        “The new study was carried out by independent doctors at the Department
        of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital
        Centre in Quebec, Canada. They took blood samples from 30 pregnant women and 39 other women who were not having a baby. They were looking for residues of the pesticides associated with the cultivation of GM food. These include so-called Bt toxins, which are implanted using GM techniques into corn and some other crops.

        Traces of Bt toxin were found in the blood of 93 per cent of the pregnant
        mothers – 28 out of 30. It was also found in 80 per cent of the umbilical cords – 24 out of 30.

        In the non-pregnant group, traces were found in the blood of 69 per cent – 27 out of 39. It is thought the toxin is getting into the human body as a result of eating meat, milk and eggs from farm livestock fed GM corn.

        The Canadian team told the scientific journal Reproductive Toxicology: ‘This is the first study to highlight the presence of pesticides associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, foetal and non-pregnant women’s blood.’

        They said the Bt toxin was ‘clearly detectable and appears to cross the placenta to the foetus’.

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          Sigh… what year? What’s the title? Who are the authors?

          reproductive toxicology runs from 1987 to present.

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          Fine, I scanned through the majority of the journals in that year and found it. Have you read it? More importantly, have you read the responses to it? This, apparently, is akin to the Seralini study. Here (I highlighted some important areas for you)

          A recently published paper in Reproductive Toxicology by authors Aris
          and Leblanc reported the potential for maternal and fetal exposure to
          certain pesticides associated with genetically modified foods (PAGMF)
          [1] . The authors conclude among other things that both maternal and
          fetal exposure to the glufosinate metabolite
          3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid (3-MPPA) results from the approved
          agricultural uses of glufosinate in Canada, as evidenced by detectable
          levels of 3-MPPA in serum samples obtained from pregnant women and their
          fetuses.
          The authors also suggest that given the biological and
          toxicological effects of this metabolite, which they state are similar
          to those of the parent compound, more studies are needed to better
          understand the potential impact of 3-MPPA on the fetus. Glufosinate
          residues were also reported, but only in plasma of non-pregnant women.

          Bayer CropScience (BCS), as the primary registrant of the active
          ingredient glufosinate-ammonium, has several issues with the
          publication. We find a number of incorrect statements in the paper in
          addition to possible analytical inadequacies and implausibilities which
          we believe should be clarified.

          To begin, BCS would like to point out that the metabolite 3-MPPA is not a
          significant residue in glufosinate-tolerant crops; the (−) isomer of
          N-acetylglufosinate (NAG) is the major metabolite in
          glufosinate-tolerant crops (1998 JMPR residue review) [2]
          . Of note,
          there is a complete regulatory toxicology dossier available for NAG
          which includes rat and rabbit teratology studies; there is no evidence
          of teratogenicity in either species (1999 JMPR toxicity review, and EU
          DAR) [3,4] .

          3-MPPA is a major residue in conventional crops, and a significant body
          of guideline toxicity studies is available for 3-MPPA which have been
          recently reviewed in the EU re-registration process according to
          Directive 91/414/EEC
          . BCS challenges the assertion that 3-MPPA has
          similar biological and toxicological effects to glufosinate based on
          this existing significant body of data which apparently was not known by
          the authors. 3-MPPA does not inhibit glutamine synthetase and therefore
          by definition cannot have similar biological properties (Koecher and
          Dickerhof) [5] and (ENV/JM/MONO(2002)14) [6]
          . In the 2002EU Draft
          Assessment Report (DAR), the Rapporteur Member State concluded that
          there were no teratogenic effects in either the rat or rabbit teratology
          studies for 3-MPPA. The 2005 EFSA Scientific Report [7] stated that
          toxicity studies carried out on NAG and 3-MPPA indicate that these
          metabolites are of lower toxicity than glufosinate.

          More importantly, BCS has reason to doubt the accuracy of the reported
          serum levels for 3-MPPA. Aris and Leblanc analyzed their samples
          according to the method described by Motojyuku et al. [8] who reported
          that a peak derived from endogenous plasma components interfered with
          analysis of 3-MPPA.
          Although Aris and Leblanc reported 3-MPPA in every
          sample of maternal and fetal cord blood and most samples of non-pregnant
          women, insufficient detail is provided in the publication to understand
          if and how the problem of interference was addressed. Therefore, BCS
          believes that the reported 3-MPPA could be due to an artifact of the
          analysis. Additional description and detail from the authors, including
          validation of the method with chromatograms and spectra, would be needed
          to prove that 3-MPPA was indeed found in serum.

          Further examination of putative 3-MPPA concentrations in the plasma
          raises additional concerns. It is known that glufosinate and its
          metabolites are rapidly cleared from the body (EU DAR) [4] . Assuming
          100% of the food consumed had 3-MPPA residues at the maximum allowable
          residue levels (MRL) and 5% of the residues are absorbed, the women
          would need to consume extreme amounts of food to achieve the reported
          levels. For example, one of the highest Canadian MRLs for a human
          consumable item is lentils (a non-GMO crop) at 6mg/kg. Back calculating
          from the highest plasma concentration (417ng/mL 3-MPPA equivalent to
          494ng/mL glufosinate) would require the women to consume more than 6kg
          of lentils per day!
          In the same vein, apples (0.1mg/kg MRL, also a
          non-GMO crop) would require consumption of more than 370kg/day or corn
          grain (0.2mg/kg, a GMO crop) would require consumption of more than
          185kg/day.

          BCS also questions the reported glufosinate serum findings. Glufosinate
          residues were only reported in non-pregnant women. The authors
          attributed the absence of glufosinate in maternal and fetal cord blood
          to hemodilution. If one compares the mean putative 3-MPPA concentrations
          and considers them normative for hemodilution, the relative value for
          glufosinate in pregnant women should be well above the detection limit
          (the authors acknowledge there was no significant difference between
          3-MPPA concentrations in pregnant and non-pregnant women). Even though
          the reported glufosinate concentrations are lower than claimed for
          3-MPPA, the plasma levels are high relative to normal food consumption,
          as for the metabolite.

          BCS believes that the data and rationales provided in this article are
          sufficient to question the accuracy and credibility of the authors’
          findings and conclusions related to glufosinate and the metabolite
          3-MPPA.

  • Pingback: The Evidence on GMO Safety | Ramez Naam

  • Pit Boss

    Any long-term studies on humans? No? Then this article was a waste of space.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      I guess 20 years of eating them as a entire culture doesn’t count. Oh wait…

  • Peter

    It’s undeniable that in terms of nutrition and environmental impact there’s no comparison between biological and gmo, mostly because of the agricultural practices adjacent to the production. Furthermore gmo technology prevents the farmer from adapting the seed to its local condition through seed saving, therefore reducing the adaptability of the plant overtime and the overall food diversity. Regardless of being detrimental or not for our health, why not label it? Let the people decide what they put in their mouths and what sort of practices they want to support.

  • Veritas101

    Long-term studies huh? None of these studies have been conducted on humans, correct? Let alone conducted on humans for 3-5 generations, correct?

    Humans and said animals are not the same. While I am still skeptical of the GMOs, I think we still need to look at this thing more holistically.

    Why not cross breed heartier strains with strains which are tastier/healthier? Instead of pesticides, use the many green pesticides already known to exist – stinging nettle, wormwood, summer tansy extracts already work.

    And, most important, **Over Population** That’s right, over population is our main culprit. Of course, one can point to Global Warming as well. Both are in effect here. Global Warming is not something we can change immediately, neither is Over Population.

    But to think developing GM foods to combat the above is a positive solution is just absurd. Why? So we can add *more* people and ultimately *more* pollution? If we are looking to save this beautiful planet and save humanity, then we need to start from scratch.

  • MADGE Australia Inc

    Does anyone notice that a 10 generation study on quail is not relevant for human health? Or that a 7 month study on salmon, which generally live 4-5 years is not long enough? Or that cows can live to their 20s and so a 25 month study – i.e. just over 2 years is not long enough.

    How is all this relevant to human health? How can this show that formula from GM soy, corn and GM fed cows is suitable for a human baby, especially if they are ill? Or how can it show that GM food is safe for the elderly or chronically sick to eat? If you really were interested in science, rather than pretending we know all about GM food when we do not, you would be asking these questions.

    Note that the studies show that the ARE differences in GM fed animals but this is dismissed as ‘not statistically relevant’ or ‘not biologically relevant’. Who says so and on what basis are these decisions made? These are questions well worth exploring.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      They are explored… in detail… by hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that are designed correctly and analyzed correctly.

      So far, there has never been any sign of any condition, disease, or cancer linked with any GMO… in humans or otherwise.

      The fact that people do not accept that shows that those people are either A) misinformed or B) liars.

      If you have not read the actual studies yourself or understand why things like quail, cows, and rats are relevant to human systems, then you don’t understand how science works.

      As far as the “not statistically relevant”, you have to understand statistics.This is a system of math specifically designed to analyze complex data. It has been in use for centuries and the tools of statistical analysis are well proven. If you don’t understand this, then I suggest you take it up with your high school and college math departments because your education is lacking.

      • MADGE Australia Inc

        Actually we had an 18 month look at the data used to approve GM RR canola GT73 in Australia. Here is our report on the defects of the studies presented.

        http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/Rev-GM-RR-Canola-Animal-Studies-for-Tony-Burke.pdf

        There were 4 published animal feeding trials on the GT73. They were ‘animal production studies’ (trout, chickens, pigs and lambs/sheep) that looked at the size of chicken breasts or the tenderness of the lamb chop or that animals gained enough weight to be slaughtered at the normal time. You may consider these human health endpoints but I do not.

        Our report details the numerous flaws with the studies. After reading this it is hard to see the data on which GM crops are recommended for approval as anything other than severely lacking.

        This then raises questions about the quality of science, regulation and the abuse of public health in a time where corporations hold considerable sway over governments, science funding and the extraction of profits via their products which the public neither fully understands nor has the option to reject as they are not properly labelled.

        The whole GM experiment is more like the attitude of the Catholic Church to Galileo than credible science.

        Don Lotter has some excellent published work on this:

        Lotter, D. 2009. International Journal of the Sociology of Agriculture and Food. Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise;

        http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/16/1/lotter1.pdf

        Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity

        http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/16/1/lotter2.pdf

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          I’m sorry, but when you discredit the over 400 (independant) trials that are actually looking at things like toxins in the blood and amount of GM material in the bloodstream, then we can talk.

          Until then, you don’t seem to actually understand what genes are, what the modifications actually do, and the evidence that there IS NO HARM TO ANYTHING that eats GM food.

          Here’s a list of 600 peer-reviewed papers. http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

          http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Snell_2012.pdf

          The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been
          considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

          598Reichert, M., Kozaczyński, W., Karpińska, T., et al. (2013). Histopathology of Internal Organs of Farm Animals Fed Genetically Modified Corn and Soybean Meal. Bulletin of the Veterinary Institute in Pulawy, 56(4), pp. 419-689. Retrieved 23 Jan. 2013, from doi:10.2478/v10213-012-0109-y

          Histopathological examination of liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, duodenum, jejunum, skeletal muscle, and bursa of Fabricius samples, collected from broiler chickens, laying hens, fattening pigs, and calves fed genetically modified corn MON 810 and soybean meal MON-40-3-2 (Roundup Ready, RR), was performed The examination showed no significant differences between the control animals fed diets containing no genetically modified feeds and animals fed genetically modified feeds. In some cases, congestion of parenchyma and focal lymphoid cell infiltrations were observed in all dietary groups, including controls, and therefore, it was assumed that the lesions were not associated with the feeding transgenic feeds.

          600A.M. Mannion and Stephen Morse. Biotechnology in agriculture: Agronomic and environmental considerations and reflections based on 15 years of GM crops. Progress in Physical Geography December 2012 36: 747-763, first published on August 21, 2012 doi:10.1177/0309133312457109 (http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/745768/1/Biotechnology%20in%20agriculture%20~%20Progress%20in%20Physical%20Geography.pdf_

          The often claimed negative impacts of GM crops have yet to materialise on large scales in the field. Agronomically, there have been yield increases per unit area, mainly due to reduced losses as a result of improved pest i.e. insect and weed
          control; in the case of conventional crops grown near GM varieties with insect resistance 2 there have been benefits due to the so-called ‘halo’ effect. Environmentally, the decrease in insecticide use has benefitted non-target and beneficial organisms while surface and groundwater contamination is less significant; human-health problems related to pesticide use have also declined. Equally important is the reduced carbon footprint as energy inputs are reduced,/blockquote>

          That’s just what I found in about 30 seconds of searching.

          Here’s the deal. DNA is not toxic to people. DNA generally builds proteins. The proteins are what makes the organism (either directly or by assembling other components).

          The DNA cannot harm us. The products of the DNA (for example Bt toxins) are NOT harmful to humans. Indeed, organic farmers use Bt toxins (though in much higher doses) to kill bugs.

          It’s truly amazing to me the hoops that people will go through to hate something that they don’t understand.

          I would also encourage you to look at who sponsors a lot of the anti-GM rhetoric. The anti-GM rhetoric basically didn’t exist even 10 years ago. but the actual GM products did exist as far back as the late 80s.

          What I’ve discovered (and has been verified by multiple sources) is that the organic food industry has started and is promoting the anti-GMO rhetoric in order to specifically increase market share. Take a look (on this website) at the attempts at GMO labeling laws, which are specifically targeting grocery stores (but not any other food sales location).

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Hi Smildon,

            The Snell review of the 12 long term and 12 multigenerational studies has been debunked here:

            “Less fundamental, but important, is that the number of genes reviewed in the Snell paper is actually very small, and not representative of what may be put into crops in coming years. Of the dozen long-term studies reviewed, 10 tested the gene for glyphosate herbicide resistance (EPSPS) in soybeans, one was a Bt insecticidal gene in corn, and one a cedar pollen gene in rice.”

            http://blog.ucsusa.org/is-the-long-term-safety-of-genetically-engineered-food-settled-not-by-a-long-shot

            and here:

            “Finally, very few of the studies that Snell and colleagues reviewed are without significant limitations, according to their analysis. For example, many of the 12 long-term and 12 multi-generational studies do not use the proper and universally accepted non-GE crop variety for comparison with the engineered crop (a so-called near-isogenic variety that is nearly identical to the engineered variety, except for the engineered gene). The reviewed research also had other substantial flaws, such as too few test animals.

            In the end, they identify only six studies in total that used enough test animals according to OECD standards, including only three long-term studies, not the 12 that the AAAS Board noted. Use of too few animals means that the tests are not sensitive enough to reliably detect harm.

            But when these six are examined more carefully, it turns out that only two used the proper near-isogenic control.

            One of these so-called acceptable studies used salmon as the test species. But as Casarett and Doull note in their discussion of sub-chronic and chronic (long-term) tests, rodents and dogs are the standard test animals as stand-ins for humans. ….I should note that the authors of the salmon study did observe some differences, such as higher triglyceride levels in the GE-fed fish. The authors apparently dismiss this observation by saying that it may be due to genetic differences between the near-isogenic comparison variety (the control) and the GE soybeans. While that is possible, the variety they used is the proper and accepted control, and therefore significant differences should be considered legitimate unless shown by further tests to be in error. The apparent rationalization about this experiment is troubling..”

            http://blog.ucsusa.org/the-long-and-short-of-long-term-safety-testing-of-ge-foods-part-2

            These are just two extracts from the articles but they give the general idea.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Your first comment is a goal post shift. Now, you’re talking about specific genes. What, you want a review of all the long term studies that just one specific gene? That’s not what you said in the first place.

            I’ll also note that these studies were not intended to be “stand-ins” for human testing. Where did you get that idea?

            Oh, now you want single gene, long term, human studies? Sorry, that’s pretty much illegal.

            Except for the fact that Americans have been eating GM food for nigh on 3 decades with no ill effects. Cancer rates have not increased with the rate of GM food consumption. There have been no alleregies to GM foods. Indeed, the majority of DNA expressing trans genes aren’t even expressed in the part we eat.

            There’s no physical way in which the trans genes could affect humans.

            Let’s talk about Bt for a second. You are aware aren’t you that organic farmers are allowed to use Bt on their crops, right? You don’t seem to mind that. You are aware that there is no conceivable way in which Bt can affect humans right?

            http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/bt-ext.html

            I quote

            No complaints were made after eighteen humans ate one gram (g) of commercial B.t. preparation daily for five days, on alternate days. Some inhaled 100 milligrams (mg) of the powder daily, in addition to the dietary dosage (6). Humans who ate one g/day of B.t.k. for three consecutive days were not poisoned or infected (12)

            The FDA standard is significantly less than that.

            Yes, your extracts give a general idea. That there is no actual evidence supporting any toxic problems with GM foods and that you and those you support are doing anything in your power to find something to attack… just like creationists.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Hi Smildon,

            The two articles I linked to discuss the Snell review that looked at 12 long term and 12 multigenerational studies. I put that in because that is what the article we are commenting on is based on:

            “Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). – See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/#comment-1362238234

            The critique of the Snell study shows that the small amount of GM genes assessed by most of the studies and says they are not representative of what we eat. Therefore you cannot say the Snell review shows GM safe to eat. The second article also shows how inadequate the vast majority of the studies used in the Snell review are. Out of the 12 studies only 2 had proper control subjects and out of these 2 one showed significant differences in the GM fed animal that were ignored.

            My goalposts are the same – focussed on what the article we are commenting on is talking about.

            Regarding bt. The stuff used by organic farmers is from a soil organism, it is sprayed on externally and degrades fairly rapidly and can be washed off. It is only used when there is an pest attack. Also some people have reported reactions to this form of bt.

            The bt in GM plants is often synthetic or chimeric ie is a mix of DNA from several bt bacteria. It is engineered into the plant and is expressed in all parts of the plant. It cannot be washed off.

        • hyperzombie

          Don Lotter is an Organic activist, not an independent scientist.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            It is interesting that you ignore all the information I presented and attack the credibility of an author. This is called ‘playing the man, not the ball’.

            Here is a link to Don Lotters’s resume detailing his Phd, 2 Masters Degrees and Bachelor of Science as well as the positions he has held. http://www.donlotter.net/resume03.html

            What do you call the scientists who work within the companies or at the behest of companies to produce the data that GM food is approved on? Are they GM activist scientists? Scientists who raise questions about GM food and crops have to be brave as they are attacked by a multi-billion dollar industry with deep political links with a lot to lose.

            Surely we should always look at the quality of the science used to justify products. With GM food there is no proof it is safe to eat. Therefore we are being used as unwilling test subjects and our health is being gambled with for corporate profit.

            If you would like some independent scientific discussion on GM and its flaws and the far better alternatives have a look at Independent Science News.

            http://www.independentsciencenews.org

          • hyperzombie

            It is interesting that you ignore all the information I presented and attack the credibility of an author. This is called ‘playing the man, not the ball’.

            I am not attacking his credibility, just stating the FACT that Don Lotter’s is an Organic activist. He is most likely a very credible Organic Activist, but he is not a dispassionate scientist.

            Here is a link to Don Lotters’s resume detailing his Phd, 2 Masters Degrees and Bachelor of Science as well as the positions he has held.

            His resume clearly indicates that he is a passionate Organic and permaculture Activist.

            What do you call the scientists who work within the companies or at the behest of companies to produce the data that GM food is approved on?

            Do any of them advocate for GMOs or do they just supply dispassionate science? Good science will speak for itself.

            Scientists who raise questions about GM food and crops have to be brave as they are attacked by a multi-billion dollar industry with deep political links with a lot to lose.

            Scientists that produce good science have nothing to worry about, on either side. The Organic industry is also a Billion Dollar industry that is playing you like a fiddle IMHO.

            Surely we should always look at the quality of the science used to justify products. With GM food there is no proof it is safe to eat. Therefore we are being used as unwilling test subjects and our health is being gambled with for corporate profit.

            No food can be PROVEN to be safe. Has the untested “Organic” method food been tested for safety? Does the Organic industry really have your health and safety in mind when they primarily use Animal Feces as fertilizer? Animal Feces is a known carrier of E coli, that kills 100s and permanently injures 1000s per year. The Organic Industry is the one that is putting the health and wellbeing of people at risk in the name of Corporate Profits.

            For every one person that you can name that has been killed by eating GMOs, I will name 5 that have been killed by eating Organic.

            f you would like some independent scientific discussion on GM and its flaws and the far better alternatives have a look at Independent Science News

            You have no idea what “independant” or “science” means do you?

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            I fail to be convinced that people that support organic, biodynamic, agroecological or permaculture forms of agriculture and are concerned about GM are awash with money. Personally I do this voluntarily for no gain whatsoever while GM companies like Monsanto, Du Pont, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Bayer make billions out of selling chemicals and seeds.

            You may like to refresh your memory as to what happened to an eminent scientist who was a leader in his field, who studied the health effects of GM on rats and had his career destroyed.

            http://www.gmfreecymru.org/documents/pusztai-fifteen-years-too-late.html

            He came to Britain from communist Hungary and reflected that what happened to him over GM was similar to the silencing under communism. Before you insult me you should have a look at what has already happened to independent scientists. If you really support science you should be saddened and working to support science, not bury it under corporate expedience and influence.

          • hyperzombie

            I fail to be convinced that people that support organic, biodynamic, agroecological or permaculture forms of agriculture and are concerned about GM are awash with money.

            Earthbound farms just sold for 600 million dollars, that is alot of Organic Green.

            Personally I do this voluntarily for no gain whatsoever

            Same, Here. i don’t make any money posting about GMOsor any other topic.

            GM companies like Monsanto, Du Pont, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Bayer make billions out of selling chemicals and seeds.

            First off, Monsanto makes very little from chemical sales, they are mostly a seed company now that Round up is off patent.

            Du Pont, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Bayer make billions out of selling chemicals and seeds.

            Yes they do, but they also make money from selling “Organic” seeds and chemicals.

            Dr Arpad Pusztai<

            The good doctor "destroyed his own career, by publishing a very poor study.

            He came to Britain from communist Hungary and reflected that what happened to him over GM was similar to the silencing under communism.

            I guess under communist rule you were allowed to publish crap studies with out much push back.

            Before you insult me

            Why on earth would I insult you?

            If you really support science you should be saddened and working to support science, not bury it under corporate expedience and influence.

            There are 1000s of GMO studies done by independent scientist as well as 100s of reports done by Governments and NGOs, Less than 1% have major issues with GMOs

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Monsanto made a $1.48 billion profit last year.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/monsanto-profit_n_3006157.html

            My point is none of the people who are concerned about GM and are vocal about it are profiting from their efforts. They are either just keeping their heads above water or are subsidizing their activities from other sources of income. This is in vast contrast to the biotech companies and many of the scientists employed by them.

            If you read the link on Arpad Pustzai you would have realised that he was a scientist who was widely respected and who had won a competitive tender to do the research using protocols that had been vetted specifically to show evidence relevant to human health.

            “To this day they have never found anything fundamentally wrong with his research, and none of them have ever sought to repeat it — probably because none of them has the competence. Pusztai — the small man mercilessly attacked by the scientific establishment — became the first “GM martyr” — lauded throughout the world simply because he spoke the truth. The Royal Society became a laughing stock because of its pathetic and frenzied attempts to find fault with Pusztai’s project — which had after all been set up after a competitive tendering process (6) and whose protocols had been subject to intense and ongoing peer review and scrutiny. Senior UK scientists had all too visibly allowed themselves to be swayed by political and commercial pressures into a systematic misrepresentation of a careful and deeply worrying (from a public health point of view) piece of safety research. And the furore caused a mild concern about GM crops and foods in the UK to deepen into a solid antipathy, which continues to this day.”

            You keep claiming 1000s of studies showing the safety of GM food. However you cannot produce them. This article used the Snell review to claim 24 studies showed the safety of GM food. I have linked to 2 articles showing that only 2 of those studies could be considered adequately done. Of those two studies one showed significant differences in the salmon fed GM.

            You are going round in circles claiming things that simply cannot be taken seriously as the studies have simply not been done.

          • hyperzombie

            Monsanto made a $1.48 billion profit last year.

            So, what. Organic industries make billions as well.

            My point is none ……………….employed by them.

            That is absolute BS, Big Organic and Big Placebo are a huge business. They pedal fake medicine and foods that have little health benefits for huge profits. They are playing you like a fiddle.

            If you read the link on Arpad Pusztai ………….. relevant to human health.

            This is sort of true, but the study was poorly conducted.

            “To this …………………y, which continues to this day.”

            Read the scientific journals and not activist websites for unbiased information. see below

            http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)00341-4/fulltext

            You keep claiming 1000s of studies showing the safety of GM food. However you cannot produce them. This article used the Snell review to claim 24 studies showed the safety of GM food. I have linked to 2 articles showing that only 2 of those studies could be considered adequately done. Of those two studies one showed significant differences in the salmon fed GM.

            Look the simple truth is that trillions of GMO meals have been fed to people all over the world with 0 health effects. If There was any issues with GMOs epidemiologists would have been all over it.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Talking to you is like talking to the Black Knight in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

            You are claiming that the organic industry (which is being taken over by big business + biotech’s) has the same heft as the companies like Monsanto, Bayer etc that control most of world commercial seed and have revolving doors with Governments and the judiciary especially in the US.

            You ignore the desire for many people to not have GMO, pesticides and strange additives in their food – that is why they buy organics. So you seem to say that people don’t have a right to choose what they eat.

            Next you say, with no evidence whatsoever, that GM’s OK as many people have eaten it with no ill effect. There has not been a single epidemiological study anywhere in the world on the effects of GM food. One reason is that since it is not labelled it is impossible to know how much GM people are eating. However Americans are sicker and die younger than any other wealthy country. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/10/americans-sicker-die-younger

            If you want to know the problems with GM and the way it has been approved and why it may take time to link ill-health to it read this article from an epidemiologist:

            http://gmojudycarman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Is-GM-food-safe-to-eat.pdf

          • hyperzombie

            You are claiming that the organic industry (which is being taken over by big business + biotech’s) has the same heft as the companies like Monsanto, Bayer etc that control most of world commercial seed and have revolving doors with Governments and the judiciary especially in the US

            No you have it backwards, Organic and big placebo are the giants and poor Monsanto is david.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Here are the poor struggling biotech’s that own most of world commercially traded seed:

            https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.html

            You can read the report that backs up this info graphic.

            Here is how the food that people want to buy, organic, is being bought out by big food:

            http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/services/corporate-ownership.html

            Poor Monsanto only has $1.68 billion profit from last year. The real Goliath’s are the small farmers worldwide that actually feed people. They do it using less land and water than industrial ag.

            http://exopermaculture.com/2013/10/15/big-ag-uses-70-of-agricultural-resources-to-produce-30-of-worlds-food-small-landholders-produce-the-remaining-70-using-only-30-of-the-resources/

          • hyperzombie

            Here are the poor struggling biotech’s that own most of world commercially traded seed:

            They forgot one of the largest seed companies in this report, and they didn’t mention that Land O Lakes is a member owned Co-Op. It is sad that scientists can be so sloppy, when trying to push an agenda.

            Stine Seeds

            http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/trilix/stineseed_2014/#/0

            Here is how the food that people want to buy, organic, is being bought out by big food:

            So what? Big Organic is buying Big Organic, Making Huge Organic.

            Organic is only about 5% of the market, so you mean ” Food that Some people want to buy”

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/09/us-whitewavefoods-acquisition-idUSBRE9B80DQ20131209

            Poor Monsanto only has $1.68 billion profit from last year.

            Yes Monsanto makes money, but only about 20% profit compared to Apples 30% profit and Whole Foods (Organic retailer) 30%

            The real Goliath’s are the small farmers worldwide that actually feed people. They do it using less land and water than industrial ag.

            First of all, you can’t compare harvests from the tropics with harvests from the corn belt. The next time the tropics has a -30 winter, then we can compare. Second there is no Data to back up this assumption, just an opinion piece in the NYT.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Land O’Lakes is in the info graphic if you look on the right hand side – they are in blue as they are a seed company rather than a chemical/pharmaceutical/seed company like Monsanto etc.

            Many people want to buy food without GMO or pesticides on it. They often do not have the money or the choice to do so.

            You totally misunderstand the world food system and where agribusiness fits in. The big industrial agribusiness firms produce commodities for trade in world markets. Much of this is used as animal feed or turned into biofuels. The farmers that feed people are most the small farmers who supply fruit, veggies, meat, grain etc to their local communities. These are the ones being driven off their land by ‘investment’ in industrial ag.

            US farming is dominated by the Food Bill and big agribusiness interests that pretend there is a ‘free market’. As Andreas, the ex-CEO of ADM – one of the huge grain agribusinesses said “… that global capitalism is a delusion. “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/07/dwaynes-world

            These policies do not help US family farmers. Have a look at this site for details and discussion

            http://familyfarmers.org

            Here is my blog on the world food issue with lots of links you can follow up on.

            http://www.madge.org.au/twisted-tunnel-vision-food-locks-hunger

          • hyperzombie

            Land O’Lakes is in the info graphic if you look on the right hand side – they are in blue as they are a seed company

            Land O lakes is a member owned CO-OP, primarily in the Dairy Industry. Don’t they have Co-ops in Australia?

            Monsanto is an Agricultural Biotech company that happens to sell one chemical and no pharmaceuticals.

            Many people want to buy food without GMO or pesticides on it. They often do not have the money or the choice to do so.

            Without GMO? What does that even mean? All GMOs are different, and perform in different ways. If people want a label to inform them of pesticide use, I would fully support that type of label.

            You totally misunderstand the world food system and where agribusiness fits in. The big industrial agribusiness firms produce commodities for trade in world markets.

            Yeah, and what is wrong with producing food and animal feed for sale?

            The farmers that feed people are most the small farmers who supply fruit, veggies, meat, grain etc to their local communities.

            BS, Most food is provided by family farms all over the world. Small farmers only produce a small amount of food.

            These are the ones being driven off their land by ‘investment’ in industrial ag.

            Small farmers are leaving farming because it is not profitable and it is a lot of work.

            US farming is dominated by the Food Bill and big agribusiness ……………….t country.”

            Wow, a conspiracy theory. Who would have known.

            These policies do not help US family farmers. Have a look at this site for details and discussion

            Another conspiracy theory. Who would have known.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            The infographic show who owns commercially traded seed globally. I don’t know why you can’t understand that it shows Land O’Lakes as well as other seed owners.

            https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.html

            The latest report on GMOs by FOE shows that the vast majority of GM crops are either herbicide resistant or insect tolerant or both. (Scroll down to info graphic)

            http://www.foei.org/en/what-we-do/food-sovereignty/latest-news/who-benefits-from-gm-crops-2014

            Biofuels do not feed people at all and animal feed feeds people who can afford meat and when subsidized in the US system can cause health problems – too much poor quality animal produce and not enough fruit and veg.

            Small farms are both more productive than large ones and feed people food – not commodities for sale by agribusiness.

            http://blog.ucsusa.org/small-farmers-not-monsanto-are-key-to-global-food-security-272

            It is really well known that agriculture is rigged by the big players. I’m surprised you do not know about it. There is lots of info out there – that is why I sent you the Dwayne Andreas of ADM quote. It is not hidden away. Here is some stuff you could look at if you really wanted to understand what is going on:

            “The current market structure gives commodity buyers, food processors and retailers considerable bargaining power in the supply chain. The farmers who produce the food, and the consumers who buy it, can lose out as a result.

            In many cases, buyers and retailers pay relatively low prices for crops even when the prices increase on regional or international markets. Meanwhile they may charge high prices to consumers even when wholesale prices are squeezed.

            How can we correct this imbalance of power? What rules can be applied to create a system that benefits both producers and commodity buyers? Do some business models – such as contract farming or farmer cooperatives – contribute better than others to the autonomy of farmers and to local food security? And are there other business models that small-scale farmers and investors can use with positive impacts on the realization of the right to food?”

            http://www.srfood.org/en/agribusiness

            “The real hunger games: how banks gamble on food prices and the poor lose out.”

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-real-hunger-games-how-banks-gamble-on-food-prices–and-the-poor-lose-out-7606263.html

            World hunger and trade and food production systems
            http://www.globalpolicy.org/world-hunger/trade-and-food-production-system.html

            Stuffed and Starved by Raj Patel

            http://rajpatel.org/2009/10/27/stuffed-and-starved/

            However I suspect that you are not really interested in research. I suspect you want to trumpet your beliefs without having evidence to support them. I am quite weary of supporters of GM and the current food system really knowing nothing about either.

          • hyperzombie

            The infographic show who owns commercially traded seed globally. I don’t know why you can’t understand that it shows Land O’Lakes as well as other seed owners.

            I have a problem with this infographic because it is inaccurate, Monsanto is NOT a chemical company, they sold off the chemical division many years ago. Second it is missing Stine seeds and many other large independent seed companies.

            The latest report on GMOs by FOE shows that the vast majority of GM crops are either herbicide resistant or insect tolerant or both.

            Which is a good thing. Farmers can use no till increasing the soil quality and use less insecticides that harm beneficial insects.

            Biofuels

            Biofuels are a stupid waste of feed crops, but it has nothing to with GMOs.

            nimal feed feeds people who can afford meat and when subsidized in the US system can cause health problems – too much poor quality animal produce and not enough fruit and veg.

            The far bigger health issue is people with no food or a poor selection of nutritious foods, GMOs will help to solve these problems. American eat lots of fruits, but not so many veggies. Americans have a sweet tooth, and that has nothing to do with GMOs.

            Small farms are both more productive than large ones and feed people food – not commodities for sale by agribusiness.

            I am guessing that you never read the studies that UCS cited, because if you did, you would understand that the farming methods used only apply to subsistence farmers in Africa. The Highest yields that they produced using this method was 5 ton/ha, Australian farmers average about 12 ton/ha, and at least one has passed the 20 ton/ha mark.

            http://www.fatcow.com.au/c/hsr-seeds/maize-yield-records-broken-with-hsr-n782194

            It is really well known that agriculture is rigged by the big players. I’m surprised you do not know about it. There is lots of info out there……………………………….. right to food?”

            The agriculture system is not rigged, it is totally open and and based on freedom of choice among farmers. No one forces them to grow anything, they choose what to grow and how to market their product. If the world wants more food security and more food overall, GMOs will help reach this goal, while helping to lower the environmental impacts from modern farming practices. You really need to start getting your info from credible sources, not from activist sites.

            “The real hunger games: how banks gamble on food prices and the poor lose out.”

            Whoever wrote this article does not understand the Futures market, you can make money if the commodity goes up or down.

            World hunger and trade and food production systems

            Global trade and modern Ag has saved the lives of billions people. More trade equals, more more food security.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vahQwO6iHpE

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            Monsanto is a chemical company that sells “weed control products” including Roundup. It’s on their site:

            http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/weed-control.aspx

            If you have a problem with the info graphic I suggest you contact Phil Howard, its creator, with your comments.

            GM crops have vastly increased pesticide use and they now are releasing GM crops that can be sprayed with weedkillers like 2,4-D. There is a lot of info on this but you seem never to read the links I post so here is an old TV news broadcast from the US. These weeds infest more than 51% of US farmland at the latest count.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-cka5s4AqE

            Biofuels are heavily subsidized by the US government, starting in Bush Jnr’s time.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012401869.html

            This is why Dwane Andreas says there is no free market. The company he was CEO of ADM would have profited from these subsidies and incentives.

            There is even a GM corn designed for biofuel that can wreak any corn designed for food. Even 1 grain in 10,000 of this GM corn changes the way the food type corn is processed into products like cornflakes etc.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012401869.html

            Finally I am sick of your patronising and ill-informed manner around what the research is showing about agroecological farming. It is the way of the future and has been shown by the largest, longest and most detailed scientific study done – the IAASTD – Agriculture at the cross-roads.

            Industrial agriculture is inefficient and is ruining water, soil, seeds and health of people and animals and there is plenty of evidence.

            http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03/un-report-says-small-scale-organic-farming-way-feed-world.html

            Have a look at what US farmer Joel Salatin has done on his farm to produce five times as much food as his neighbours on what was once degraded land. Not a GMO in sight.

            http://vimeo.com/81468461

            You appear to have beliefs about industrial, GM farming and world markets that are simply not supported by the facts. Believe what you want but don’t expect me to be convinced.

          • hyperzombie

            Monsanto is a chemical company that sells “weed control products” including Roundup. It’s on their site:

            Monsanto is a Biotech company that sells 1 chemical Round-up (different formulations but still just 1 chemical) Chemical sales are about 10% of Monsanto’s total sales.

            If you have a problem with the info graphic I suggest you contact Phil Howard, its creator, with your comments.

            I sent him an email yesterday asking “why didn’t he include Stine seeds and all the other independent seed producers”

            GM crops have vastly increased pesticide use and they now are releasing GM crops that can be sprayed with weedkillers like 2,4-D. There is a lot of info on this but you seem never to read the links I post so here is an old TV news broadcast from the US. These weeds infest more than 51% of US farmland at the latest count.

            Glyphosate resistant weeds originated in your part of the world before Gmos were ever introduced. Weeds will develop resistance to whatever method we use to kill them, there are weeds that resist the plow and weeds that resist hand weeding (bio mimics). 2-4-d has been used as a herbicide since the 1950s and its totally safe if used properly. also remember before modern herbicides, weeds infested 100% of all farmland.

            Biofuels are heavily subsidized by the US government, starting in Bush Jnr’s time.

            My Grandpa told me that the subsidies started back in Jimmy Carter’s days, but that was way before my time. It is a stupid policy that should be stopped along with all the other farm subsidies.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            The sales of herbicide are a major part of Monsanto’s business.

            “Net sales rose to $3.14 billion from $2.94 billion a year ago, even though sales of corn seeds and specialized genetic traits for corn fell 7 percent to $1.05 billion. The company’s agricultural productivity segment, which includes Roundup herbicide, saw sales jump 24 percent to $1.5 billion in the quarter.”

            http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/uk-monsanto-results-idUKBREA070Q220140108

            I agree that any use of chemicals becomes a technological treadmill that is silly to even embark upon and even sillier to keep throwing more herbicide at – unless you are a company that sells the chemicals.

            Here is the alternative:

            http://blog.ucsusa.org/more-herbicide-or-more-innovative-sustainable-farming-511#.U2Rbu5X-EKE.twitter

            The subsidies for ethanol were introduced in the Bush era. Your Grandpa is right that subsidies were introduced long ago – I believe in the Roosevelt New Deal era. There is some debate about whether this ruined farmers due to the loss of a price floor and parity. You can hear US farmer Brad Wilson discuss his opinion of subsidies:

            https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3C5CE7DE989132FF

            This just confirms my previous contention that there is no such thing as a ‘free market’. An opinion shared by the ex-CEO of ADM Dwayne Andreas.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            INDEPENDENT SCIENCE NEWS!?!?!? Those clowns.

            Oh yes, those clowns who banned me and deleted posts when I stated facts that disagreed with them. There’s a author on that website claiming that GMOs cause cancer, when that is clearly NOT the case.

            He claimed that Bt and Glycophosphate is toxic to humans. That is clearly NOT the case. In fact, glychophosphate CANNOT AFFECT humans in any way shape or form. It’s biochemistry.

            When I pointed that out, I had my posts removed from that “independant website”… which is nothing of the kind. Just another scare site that pretends to support science, when they are supporting an agenda.

            I agree with Hyperzombie. My own research has indicated that anti-GMO advocates didn’t exist until about a decade ago, but GM food has been available for nearly 30 years.

            In the legislation requiring labeling in the two states that have tried it, the organic farmers association was the chief sponsor of one and specifically mentioned in the other.

            There are not problems with GM food. I would much prefer eating a minuscule amount of a pesticide that cannot affect me than consume unknown amounts of copper compounds that are massively toxic to everything that organic farmers are allowed to use. Yes, check the FDA website for the list of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that organic farmers are allowed to use. Did you know that they are allowed to use those massively toxic compounds?

            Nope, that comment on the independent science website did it for me. I don’t know why you think the way you do, but those websites are scare sites. They do not support actual science. I’m willing to bet that, if I took as much effort on GM foods as I do on evolution, that I would find the same tactics used. Things like quotemining, cherry-picking, and the like. Not to mention all the fake studies coming out.

            Anti-GMO activists do these things better than creationists because they learned from creationists what mistakes not to make. They also don’t have a religion that forces them to behave in a particular way, so the anti-GMO crowd is much more effective at promoting their views.

            Yep, we’re done here.

          • MADGE Australia Inc

            GM crops were first grown in 1996. That means 18 years ago, not 30 as you claim. I first learnt about GM crops in 1995 and I thought they would be great as they would reduce pesticide use. I quickly realised they would not and that they had many, many other drawbacks. That means I’ve been looking at the GM issue for 19 years, not 10 as you claim.

            There has been a long debate about GM and its safety in the scientific as well as other communities. Have a look at the 1975 Asilomar Conference where scientists discussed the issue of GM and came up with voluntary protocols:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asilomar_Conference_on_Recombinant_DNA

            For more information read Richard Hindmarsh’s Edging Towards BioUtopia

            http://uwap.uwa.edu.au/books-and-authors/book/edging-towards-bioutopia/

            Keep the caps lock on – I always find that in the absence of reasoned argument and evidence that a few capitals interspersed in the sentence convinces me it must be true.

          • dogctor

            All of your arguments are basically the same argument replayed over and over and over again, like a broken record. It is called an ad hominem, and only people lacking substantive arguments use them. You are a fraud!

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Umm… no. Citing evidence over and over is called citing evidence over and over.

            Ad hominem is what you have done, claiming someone is a fraud without evidence to support that claim. Considering that you don’t even know what the logical fallacy you are claiming I am means, I think everyone can see who the fraud is here.

          • dogctor

            Everyone who can read science sure can, because your science, just like you is pseudoscientific junk, which makes you either science illiterate or a fraud. So which is it?

            Please post every study in your treasure trove of junk that does a kidney function test. You know what that is, doncha?

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Tell me, what is the defining character of “pseudoscience” to you?

            For example, Seralini has done three studies that talk about kidney function. And yet, every one of those have been trashed by researchers who actually know something about how science works. Heck, I’ve done it.

            I can’t link to the studies you want. If you have evidence that GMOs somehow affect kidney function, then I’ll be pleased for you to post links to the studies. If you do post links to Seralini studies, then you will be ignored from now on.

            Why is it, I wonder, do you think that discrediting me will have any effect on the actual function and use of GMOs? Why don’t you cros slink your questions to biofortified.org and see what actual resarchers have to say.

            Again, you can play gotcha games all you want. Until you (or whomever) produces valid evidence (Seralini is not), that GMOs are dangerous, then there’s no argument. So, where is the evidence?

          • dogctor

            For example, Seralini has done three studies that talk about kidney function. And yet, every one of those have been trashed by researchers who actually know something about how science works. Heck, I’ve done it.

            You have said it all right there. You have people who are clueless trashing studies they don’t understand. Come back at me when you have a clue about what you are actually testing in your animal experiments. Until that time, you, and the people criticizing Seralini do NOT actually know anything about how science works, which makes you junk scientists practicing junk science standards.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            That’s what I thought. So you somehow think that a study in which two groups that were given a 30% diet of GMO had a higher rate of survival than the CONTROL groups somehow shows that GMOs are dangerous.

            Here is my review of Seralini’s last paper. Even a non-scientist can see that it’s total crap. I’m not the one who needs to see how science works. Seralini needs to see how science works.

            http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/08/my-take-on-the-gmo-causes-cancer-study/

            I think we’re done here. Until you stop thinking using our ideology and instead actually discuss evidence, then there’s nothing I can do for you.

          • dogctor

            We were done when you couldn’t answer a simple science question about kidney function, while criticizing a scientist (Seralini) whose study was triggered by Monsanto’s study on Mon603 suggestive of KIDNEY TOXICITY. I am not going to read your link-it is more of the same unscientific nonsense.

            Are you really as retarded as you sound Mr/s Ignorant Ideologue?

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Bye bye. I’m sorry, you don’t get to come to my house and insult me like that WHILE OFFERING ZERO EVIDENCE.

            The only studies I see on NK603 that say that there is a problem have Seralini’s name attached. Seralini has a problem, he doesn’t do valid science… as numerous people have shown. Find me evidence that doesn’t involve Seralini and act like an adult in a conversation and we can continue.

          • dogctor

            You clearly didn’t hear me. Monsanto’s OWN study on Mon 603 is suggestive of kidney toxicity. How would you know what to look for when you can’t even answer the most basic of questions about kidney function?
            You really are slooooooow, aren’t you?

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Of course you won’t read the link, you don’t dare try and read something that might be convincing.

            Or how about this: http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/87/Hammond_Study_NK603.pdf
            I refer you to the bottom of page 1007 under “Clinical Pathology Parameters”. The page before describes the pathology procedures.

            And after several searches, I can still not find any papers that show kidney damage due to any GM product where Seralini is not the author or contributor.

            Perhaps if you actually provided evidence of you claim… you, like what I’m doing by referring you to relevant papers and extensively written and referenced responses. Instead of just demanding that you be known as an authority that is so credible that no evidence of your claims are required.

            Until you provide such evidence… good day.

          • dogctor

            That was your analysis of Hammond and the challenge to the veracity of the claim that NK603 is not renotoxic, Mr/s Fraud?

            Hint: the study does NOT contain the test required to assess kidney function , and the pathological description makes zero sense, because it contradicts the pathological findings expected in these rats.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Nope, just a peer-reviewed paper… which is infinitely more than you’ve ever provided.

          • dogctor

            So, your judgement of the study rests on the fact that this piece of complete garbage was published in the same magazine that peer reviewed and published Seralini. I see. Like I said, you are a fraud.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            No, unlike you, I make my judgment over many papers in multiple journals by multiple scientists… all of which agree that GMOs are safe.

            Seralini, is NOT someone to trust. This has been shown time and again. For example, his censure, which I link to in the article you refuse to read.

            Again, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? You still haven’t shown any.

          • dogctor

            My evidence is the following–science illiterates and frauds can’t judge evidence.

            Never have and never will.

    • dogctor

      Not only that, but have you noticed, Madge, that it is highly unlikely that the person who cited these even read them? Citing abstracts with the meat of the actual study behind a pay wall, is an absurd concept that only people with something to hide do.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        Perhaps you would like to read the in-depth reviews of peer-reviewed research that I have posted elsewhere on this blog… but don’t let facts get in the way of your rant.

        • dogctor

          Perhaps you should start by reading the statutory 90 day studies on rats by Hammond for Monsanto first. They are cited in your fraudulent ” review of long term safety” by Snell et al, that doesn’t say what you say it does.

          Ever been on Pub Med? Its a great resource, except of course when the studies are behind paywalls, but that doesn’t seem to bother you much. You don’t seem to have any concerns about posting studies people can’t actually read. So, search terms: ” Hammond + safety + assurance”

          Skeptic are you?

      • MADGE Australia Inc

        Hi Dogctor
        Thanks for your support. I wonder how many people who are new to the issue that read SmilodonsRetreat take him seriously? Hopefully others will take a look at the links and evidence given and make up their own minds. Either people like SR are trolls doing this for profit or they are very strange people who are unable to look at issues in a rational way. It’s always good to see the arguments they put forward as they mainly consist of studies that do not say what they claim and bullying. Ho hum!

  • alaanile

    BethAnnErickson, MDs know shockingly NOTHING about nutrition — NOTHING about food. They are not taught in medical school, and they don’t learn it after medical school. If you rely on any MD for nutritional information, then you are sadly and unfortunately as uninformed as they are.

    تخزين عفش بالرياض

    شركة ترميمات بالرياض

    شركة دهانات بالرياض

    شركة تنظيف منازل بمكة

    شركة كشف تسربات المياه
    بجدة

    مكافحة حشرات في جدة

    تنظيف خزانات مكة

    نقل اثاث بمكة

    تنظيف منازل جدة

    شركة عزل بالرياض

    شركة عزل اسطح بالرياض

    شركة عزل خزانات بالرياض

    شركة مكافحة الفئران
    بالرياض

    شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض

    رش مبيدات

    شركة عزل خزانات بالرياض

    شركة تخزين عفش بالرياض

    شركة تنظيف بيارات بالرياض

    شركة تنظيف مجالس بالمدينة المنورة

    شركة تنظيف منازل بالمدينة المنورة

    غسيل فلل بالمدينة المنورة

    شركة تنظيف مسابح بجدة

    شركة تنظيف موكيت بجدة

    شركة تنظيف شقق مكة

    شركة مكافحة حشرات بالدمام

    شركات تنظيف المنازل بالدمام

    تسليك مجاري بالدمام

    شركة تنظيف فلل بالرياض

    كشف تسربات بالرياض

    نقل عفش بالرياض

    شركة مكافحة الحشرات بتبوك

    شركة تنظيف فلل بجدة

  • alaanile

    BethAnnErickson, MDs know shockingly NOTHING about nutrition — NOTHING about food. They are not taught in medical school, and they don’t learn it after medical school. If you rely on any MD for nutritional information, then you are sadly and unfortunately as uninformed as they are.

    here

    here

  • roundthings
    • SmilodonsRetreat

      DNA is DNA. It’s not “foreign”. It’s the same four nucleotides that exist in every living thing on Earth.

      What’s the difference between breeding over centuries to promote a trait introduced by mutation and putting the mutation in ourselves?

      This is TOTALLY, the wrong tactic. DNA can’t harm you. You eat a huge amount of DNA every day and it doesn’t do anything to you (or for you).

      What you should be doing is finding out what that DNA does, where it does it (hint, it’s not the part we eat), and what the results are.

      You would rather generate fear instead of understanding. Because, in humans, fear wins over logic… and over correctness.

      • roundthings

        You’re wrong, but don’t let that stop you

        http://www.organicconsumers.org/documents/huber-glyphosates-2009.pdf

        http://organicconsumers.org/documents/report_on_animals_exposed_to_gmos.pdf

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bartolotto/have-genetically-modified_b_5597751.html

        http://www.alternet.org/food/major-study-demonstrates-monsanto-gmo-corn-product-can-cause-damage-liver-and-kidneys-and?akid=12007.138978.hyC3ML&rd=1&src=newsletter1010773&t=12

        http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-study-links-gmo-food-leukemia

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

        http://rt.com/usa/toxic-study-gmo-corn-900/

        http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5296.cfm

        http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may2014/farmers-report-better-animal-health-non-gmo-feed.php

        http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/toxin-from-gm-crops-found-in-human-blood/1/137728.html

        http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/print/

        http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1484975901/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1484975901&linkCode=as2&tag=ultraculture-20&linkId=7XVMSOLROGBTKHVZ

        http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/07/22/333725880/some-food-producers-are-quietly-dumping-gmo-ingredients

        https://www.facebook.com/GmoInside/photos/a.482231601816655.113449.478981558808326/792600257446453/?type=1

        http://civileats.com/2012/09/20/first-ever-long-term-stud-on-gmo-foods-should-have-you-worried/

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

        http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf

        http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/GE_Backgrounder_FINAL.pdf

        http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/GM-Crops-just-the-science.pdf

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/14570

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          “I’m wrong” Dang, well, I guess you’ve got me trapped in the crushing grip of reason, logic and evidence.

          No more link spam. Pick one and talk about it. Explain why I’m wrong with links to actual science, not fear mongering websites.

          OMG, your links report Seralini? Just go away. You have no idea what’s going on. Anyone linking to a Seralini study is too ignorant of science to begin to have a conversation with.

          You have read his study right? You did read the part where 70% of the control group had worse tumors and deaths than the max GMO experimental groups right? You do understand that Sprague Dawley rats are bred to get tumors at the end of their two year lifespan (and Seralini’s study was for two years).

          It doesn’t matter if he “edited” the report. The results from the lab work are the same.

          Nothing in Seralini’s work casts any doubt on GMO food. Of course, Seralini is extremely biased and has been censured before for misrepresenting scientific results. But that doesn’t matter, because he agrees with what you think.

          Sigh…

          • roundthings

            Ha, you’re funny. Go back to work for Monsanto, but you might want to start looking for another job because as soon as their toxic GMOs are labeled, Monsanto is toast.
            Oh, by the way, Roundup has been linked to autism, not to mention the growth of superweeds.
            See ya, Corporate sock puppet

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            That’s all you have? You accuse me of being a shill.

            Run along. Adults are talking. Let me know when you have something that refutes every single piece of peer-reviewed research and the 20+ years that we have actually been eating GMO foods.

            Oh, and those labeling laws… you do understand that they only apply to grocery stores right? So the bags of chips in the deli won’t be labeled. And you do understand that these laws are specifically designed to promote the organic food industry and are lobbied for by the organic food industry and advertising is paid for by the organic food industry. Of course, you know all that, but that’s OK, because you think that organic food is better than other forms of food. And it’s OK to lie, cheat, and promote shoddy science as long as it supports your point of view.

            There is absolutely no difference between a creationist and you. Except that you also use fear as a tool, which creationists really don’t have as much access to.

          • roundthings

            I use facts, but you refuse to accept it. GMOs are not natural, GMOs have pesticides built into them that can’t be washed or cooked off, food made in a lab is not food.
            How many countries have banned GMOs? How many have actually burned the crops so they can’t do any more harm?
            The same would be happening here if our government wasn’t so corrupt.
            Monsanto controls the USDA, FDA and EPA.
            What fear do you have if GMOs are labeled? If they are so great and can be proven than why are you afraid of a little label?
            Non GMO Verified labels are already in the markets-not necessarily Organic. People have a right to know what’s in their food, wouldn’t you agree?

            I know Monsanto doesn’t want people to know, because people are smart enough to want to avoid test tube created crap.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            No. You don’t use facts. You use things that you think are facts, but are not supported by evidence. Nothing you listed is in any way actual evidence.

            You do understand that glycophosphate (a herbicide) CANNOT in any way affect humans. There’s nothing in the human body that it reacts to. Bt is the same way. Oh and you are aware that Bt is allowed on organic food right?

            As far as “eating it”, so what? Bt and glycophosphate can’t hurt you, the concentration in GM plants is MUCH lower than used in actual sprays and weed/pest control agents (because the pests are consuming the toxin instead of just having it on them).

            Who cares if other countries ban GMOs? If everyone jumped of a bridge, would you? That’s a logical fallacy.

            Monsanto is just one of many businesses that are in the GMO business. Still, so what if they control the government. That has no bearing on the science. That’s another logical fallacy.

            What fear do I have of GMO labeling? I don’t fear it any more than I fear creationism. What I fear is people like you, who obviously don’t have actual facts, using “GMO” to create a fear response in others… which is a logical fallacy.

            Food is in people’s food. That’s all.

            You do know that Monsanto is actually one of the smaller businesses in the GMO industry right? And their business practices STILL don’t have any bearing on the evidence that GMOs are safe. Another logical fallacy.

            This is why I consider you a fear-monger. You have no problem spouting information that is patently wrong and ill-informed. You are using the information you have to promote fear instead of understanding. You want to do things your way.

            Fine, buy only organic food. How hard is that? You get to make a choice, but you are using fear to restrict other people’s choices. I want to buy GMO food. I want to support an industry that uses evidence instead of marketing tricks (like organic). I want to support an industry that actually cares for and promotes environmental stewardship. Let me have that choice, instead of using fear to force people who don’t have all the evidence (like yourself) to do what you want.

          • roundthings

            Monsanto’s big deal on bt toxin is that they claimed it doesn’t get into the bloodstream, yet studies have shown that it does. Glyphosphate has been shown to be harmful as well, but you already know that.

            Monsanto is the largest biotech controller of GMO seeds in the world, Dow and Syngenta are tiny compared to Monsanto.

            Here’s the rub-the truth is getting out there, all you paid hucksters with all your training trying to ‘debunk’ anything that smacks of being anti GMO are getting your asses handed to you.

            Oh, thought you might want to read this:

            http://organicconnectmag.com/victory-fish-wildlife-service-bans-gmos-pesticides-wildlife-refuges/

          • hyperzombie

            Hmmm, the Bt trait was developed by Syngenta not Monsanto, and it is the most widely used organic insecticide.

          • roundthings

            Monsanto sells bt corn and soy. The bt is locked into the plant, it can’t be washed off or cooked off

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            And Bt CANNOT HARM HUMANS. And, if it’s locked into the plant, it can’t harm other insects that don’t eat the corn.Duh!

            It’s extremely environmentally friendly, unlike organic crops which are allowed to spray substances that are toxic to mammals and fish all over the place.

            You are fighting the wrong group dude.

          • hyperzombie

            All crops are banned from wildlife areas, nothing to do with GMOs.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Let me just add, that NOTHING you have said is new. I’ve heard these exact same arguments for a long time now. They are just as poor now as they were 5 years ago.

            And GMOs are still around and still not killing people.

          • roundthings

            GMOs have been killing people for years. You think the exploding child cancer rates came out of nowhere?
            50% of Americans can count on getting cancer in their lifetimes, way higher than in 1995 the year before Clinton allowed GMOs to infest our food supply without long term safety testing.
            If Obama’s USDA, lead by Tom Vilsackofshit, long term Monsanto w hore, is allowed to continue unabated than that rate would reach 100%.
            We are going to stop him in his tracks. People who care more about this country than the rabid corrupt shitbags in Washington and the Monsatan minions who profit off other people’s misery.
            Millions Against Monsanto-just one of many organizations spreading the truth about Monsanto

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            You’re still just making up facts. You need to read ALL the articles on this blog about GMOs. You will find that cancer rates in the US have been DECREASING for the last two decades.

            You need to use actual facts.

          • roundthings

            What are you, kidding me? This Monsanto funded blog is so full of garbage

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            First of all. Prove it. Provide evidence )beyond your sad little conspiracy theory) that this is a Monsanto funded blog.

            Or we’ll just assume that this is just more of your made up facts.

            Second. Even if this was a Monsanto funded blog… it still doesn’t mean that the science is wrong.

            You have nothing more than fallacies. No evidence, no refutations of evidence, nothing but belief. You are no different than creationists, anti-vaxers and other anti-science groups.

          • roundthings

            Quite obvious. You don’t have to be anti-science to not want toxic lab created crap masquerading as food in the food supply.
            Label it. If you want to eat pesticide corn with bt toxin and e.coli in it you can. For those who want to avoid lab created garbage they can.
            I think GMOs should be banned, you think your employer should be able to sell whatever they want.
            So, label it and let the people decide

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Again. You have yet to provide any evidence that GMOs are toxic.
            Again, you don’t understand that Bt is an available pesticide for organic foods.
            E. coli is just as present in organics as it is in any other form of food.

            The more dangerous food (in terms of environmental damage) is already labeled. It’s organic.

            And I feel compelled to point out, AGAIN, that the so called labeling laws do not allow for informed choices to be made. They ONLY apply to grocery stores, not to restaurants, gas stations, hospitals, etc. At least one of the bills explicitly stated that the purpose of the law was to promote the organic food industry at the expense of the another industry.

            Again, this is fear mongering by one industry to promote itself, instead of protecting you. I would encourage you to read actual research… including the dozens of papers I linked to above instead of just blinding accepting whatever data supports your already decided on conclusion (also a logical fallacy).

          • roundthings

            If people want to eat pesticide corn and soy, etc than it would be up to them, those that want to avoid it, will. If GMOs are so wonderful than Monsanto has nothing to fear about labeling them.

            Has nothing to do with fear mongering, everything to do with being informed and making a healthy choice.

            GMOs are not food and are not healthy. I have done enough research to come to that conclusion as have millions of Americans.
            Great response from a reader on an article about Ben and Jerry’s supporting GMO labeling:

            >Monsanto and Hillary Clinton’s Redemptive First Act as Secretary of State
            Please Google in this name ” The World According to Monsanto” and watch this video.

            For those who hope Obama will bring something different to the world, we must first see clearly what is happening, and make demands of him that are profound, not show.

            Meanwhile corporations like Monsanto are moving rapidly to take control of food supplies … and democracies, including ours.

            Obama chose Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. We cannot know what deals were struck to make her stop her destructive campaigning long after it was apparent she had lost. But we do know that Mark Penn, CEO for Burson-Marsteller, one of the world’s large PR firms representing Monsanto advised her for years and ran her campaign. And when she showed up again, by Obama’s side, suddenly so did a man named Michael Taylor … also again.

            MIchael Taylor is a Monsanto lawyer Bill Clinton once put in charge of the FDA where he approved Monsanto’s rBGH. Hillary was back, andObama was putting Taylor on his transition team

            Using the transition team’s advice, Obama appointed Tom Vilsack to head the USDA, overriding 20,000 opposing “grassroots” emails. The objection to Vilsack? His deep Monsanto connections.

            Hillary Clinton’s connections to Monsanto go way back the Rose Law Firm where she worked. Rose represents Monsanto, Tyson, and Walmart -the world leaders in genetic engineering, animal production and industrialized food. She received favors there, as did Bill.

            In office, Bill’s USDA immediately and significantly weakened chicken waste and contamination standards, easing Tyson’s poultry-factory expansion, , and his USDA head, Espy, was indicted for bribes, money laundering, and much more, with Tyson was the largest corporate offender.

            Bill appointed Michael Taylor head of the FDA and put other Monsanto employees in as US Agricultural Trade Representatives, onto International Biotechnology Consultive Forums, and more …
            Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

            The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

            He also signed this into legislation- On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation.

            With the president’s signature, agriculture giants that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds are given the go-ahead to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even as questions remain largely unanswered about the health risks these types of products pose to consumers.

            After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

            We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

            As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

            At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

            As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

            As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

            As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

            As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.<

          • roundthings

            Once again, a message has been deleted. Please explain

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Nope. Still no deleted posts on the Disqus panel.

            Honestly, you’re arguments aren’t worth deleting. They will not convince anyone who uses logic or considers evidence.

            You have stated dozens of things that are not true. You have made claims without evidence (including calling me an industry shill). Your arguments are nothing more than logical fallacies wrapped with a healthy dose of fear mongering.

            You have not read my other posts on GMOs (with peer-reviewed research), you have no read the labeling laws that you support, even though they don’t do what you think that they will. And finally, and most importantly, you are demanding that we restrict how people do things because you don’t like it.

            Come back with actual evidence (Seralini doesn’t count, for numerous reasons I’ve pointed out here and elsewhere). But your continued ravings about Monsanto just means that you have no idea what is really going on in the GMO/farming industries.

          • roundthings

            My last 2 comments were deleted. I am not going to waste my time anymore/
            Suck down as much pesticide corn and soy that you want to
            By the way, 33% of Americans now say they avoid GMOs. Soon that will be almost 100%. GMO labeling=the death of Monsanto.
            Find another employer, son, you’re gonna be out of a job soon

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            You can lie all you want. No comments were deleted. Pesticides in GM products cannot harm vertebrates (literally… cannot, we don’t even have the protein that the pesticides interfere with).

            And another logical fallacy. Argument ad populatum. It means that just because everyone agrees with a stance, it does not mean that the stance is correct. Five hundred years ago, everyone knew the Earth was flat and the Sun orbited Earth. They were all wrong.

            Be sure to come back when you have actual evidence for anything you’ve said here.

          • roundthings

            Pesticides cannot harm vertebrates?
            literally the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Interesting. I’m willing to bet that you can’t name BOTH pesticides that are currently permitted for use in GM crops.

            I’m further willing to bet that you cannot describe their method of action and why they cannot harm humans.

            But go ahead, impress me. Be sure to provide evidence for your claim.

            And, while you’re at it, why don’t you compare the family specific pesticide (Bt) used in GMOs with the general pesticides used in the organic food industry. Things like copper compounds which ARE toxic to humans and all other life forms.

          • roundthings

            You mean the shikimate pathway? Turns out intestinal bacteria utilize this pathway and that monsanto’s claims are bunk that glyphosphate doesn’t harm mammals

            http://drglennacalder.ca/the-shikimate-pathway-genetically-modified-food-and-your-health/

            bt pesticides in GMOs are inserted into the plant, it can’t be washed off or cooked off.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            You really don’t have a clue do you?

            The shikimate acid pathway is how plants and bacteria convert carbohydrates to the biosynthesis of aromatic compounds which themselves are further converted to amino acids and other compounds. Since the final step in the path is the sole target for glycophosphate… the process you are describing is about a herbicide… not a pesticide.
            Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1999 Jun;50:473-503.

            To be more specific, glycophosphate targets 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase this is a catalyst that is used in the formation of phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. Plants that are “round-up ready” are modified so that glycophosphate doesn’t inhibit amino acid production. Thus, the herbicide doesn’t affect them. Round up, is a SPRAYED herbicide. It cannot affect animals because we don’t manufacture those amino acids. Round up, literally, can have no direct effect on humans or any other animal. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29264/

            Here’s an interesting article that help you: http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/05/04/roundup-and-gut-bacteria/

            And another one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/condemning-monsanto-with-_b_3162694.html

            And that last is by someone who doesn’t like Monsanto either. You see, you can be both skeptical of GMOs and smart about it. But the evidence is conclusive. There is no danger from GMOs to humans.

          • roundthings

            Our intestinal bacteria does. One reason glyphosphate is showing up in fetuses, it is in the bloodstream of almost all Americans.

            Monsanto’s claim that it is excreted without entering the bloodstream has been proven to be false.

            Oh, what’s that sound? It’s the sound of Monsanto going out of business

            http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_30574.cfm

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Do you even read the articles you post? Did you read the part where the farmers didn’t follow instructions?

            BTW: You’ve made another claim. Do you care to back that claim up with evidence or are you just continuing to spout things that you have no idea about?

            Again, who cares about glycophosphate. IT CANNOT HARM HUMANS.

          • roundthings

            It absolutely can and does harm humans.
            My guess is the it will be banned within 10 years.
            Find a new job

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Again, bald claim, no support. I’ve already described the action of glycophosphate. Please, do explain how it causes harm to humans… in your own words… references to actual research to support your claims.

            My guess is that, within 10 years, it will be superseded by a better system.

            Why do you think I get money for this? I’ve asked you at least three times now to provide evidence for your claims or stop using them. But you can’t, because grand claims totally devoid of actual facts are all you have to support your point of view.

            If you look at the evidence (there’s links to a bunch of research papers in the post), there is no GMO that is currently in use that has any harmful effect on humans… indeed, GMOs are shown to be more environmentally friendly than any other crop.

            But you have been living in fear for so long, you can’t accept that you might not be correct. I am enough of a skeptic to accept that I’m incorrect sometimes, but it requires evidence… which you haven’t even begun to provide.

            Evidence requires understanding. You don’t even know the difference between pesticides and herbicides. You still haven’t stated which two GM pesticides currently are in use… you have no idea. But you think that pesticides will destroy the planet. But organic growers are allowed to use compounds that are damaging to humans, and fish, and every living thing on the planet. And they are allowed to use them in high concentrations because those compounds, while toxic as hell, are very non-specific in their action.

            But you choose to reject compounds that target only specific pests that directly impact crops. Actually, you’re a bit of a hypocrite because organic growers are allowed to spray Bt crystals as pesticide too. But that spray enters the soil, whereas plants that make the Bt toxin retain the toxin and it’s only ingested by pests that it can affect. Which is safer for the environment, safer for farmers, safer for everyone… why do you do this?

            It is apparent that you truly don’t understand what’s happening or why it’s happening. You’ve given in to fear. You reject knowledge.

            All you have is personal attacks and wild fantasies that have no relationship to reality.

            I’m sorry, but until you choose to learn, there’s nothing more for you here.

          • roundthings

            I have had 2 comments deleted that explained a lot of things. As soon as I post something concrete it gets deleted.
            I have better things to do than play tag with a Monsanto minion.
            Your company is going to go out of business as soon as GMOs are labeled. Roundup is causing super weeds and is showing up in the bloodstream in people, something Monsanto said wouldn’t happen.
            New studies are tying it to autism.
            Countries are burning GMO fields, over 60 countries require labeling and in those that do people are avoiding GMO toxins like the plague. Good for them because they will live longer.
            You work for a company that spreads cancer, disease and death and does it with a smile on it’s face.
            Their day of reckoning is coming as is anyone who has aided them on their mission to control the food supply.
            I belong to multiple anti-GMO groups and we number in the millions. America deserves a healthy food supply and a government that doesn’t take bribes from the likes of Monsatan

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            You have had no posts deleted. If they contain too many links, then they might be classified as spam, but they are not. The Disqus spam and deleted folders are empty. I’m sorry you can’t actually post things that are substantial. I guess trying again would be too difficult.

            “My Company”. You have no idea who I work for. More unfounded accusations. Of course, that’s all you actually have.

            More logical fallacies and now threats?

            There are almost 8 billion people on the planet. Your millions have no chance of feeding every with organic farming.

            You continue to not have a clue.

          • roundthings

            Nice try, there was no link in one post, one link in another.
            GMO crops won’t feed the world and don’t increase yields, they just make money for one company. For now.
            Rotating crops is more successful than spraying tons of roundup and growing toxic food.
            Monsanto is toast, son. Find another employer

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            I see. Reading isn’t your strong suit. Did you miss the “but they are not”? And the there are no deleted comments in the Disqus system for you (or anyone)?

            Shockingly, GMO crops don’t increase plant yield, but they increase farm yield by decreasing losses to pests and weeds.

            One company?!?! You do understand that Monsanto is one of dozens of GMO crop companies and really not even that large, right?

            Rotating crops is fine… but economic reality is against it. You aren’t a farmer are you? Have you ever talked to a farmer?

            Again, toxic food? Round-up cannot harm humans. You have yet to show this. But you’re fine with copper-based toxins destroying the environment, I guess. You haven’t said anything substantial in a dozen posts now.

            Again, you accuse me of being a Monsanto employee with no evidence. All you have is false information and attacks.

            You’ll note that I’m posting the same thing again and again. Some day, you may read it and understand that you are lacking something… an actual argument. But continue on your tirade… knowing that it doesn’t mean anything.

          • roundthings

            Well, if I don’t see the comment I posted it isn’t here.
            You haven’t convinced me of anything because the truth is out there and it isn’t pretty.
            Monsanto and their minions in DC are guilty of crimes against humanity.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Honestly, I’m starting to think that the problem exists between the keyboard and the chair.

            Of course, I haven’t convinced you of the truth, There isn’t enough evidence on the planet to change your mind. You care nothing for truth or reality, preferring to live in the fantasy land concocted by anti-science conspiracy theorists who have no idea what’s actually going on.

            So, you’re OK with BASF, Dow, Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer, Mendel Biotechnology, Arbor Gen and Aqua Bounty. You’re only complaint is against Monsanto.

            sigh…

          • hyperzombie

            Dont you get frustrated with the blind ideology, Monsanto could save a bus load of school kids from a burning building using nothing but hemp fiber rope and they would still hate them.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Oh I do. But this is so easy to discredit my 7-year-old could handle it.

            It’s when I start having to read the papers that I get really tired and frustrated. Here I am, reading papers, trying to become knowledgeable about some esoteric study and clowns like this just keep on spouting their ignorance. This one is pretty funny though, doesn’t even know the difference between a pesticide and a herbicide.

          • hyperzombie

            I don’t understand how they can be so gullible, they are being played like a fiddle. And I find that to be so sad.
            I hope one day that the whole GMO=poison Meme will die and we can start introducing more of them, they may be the greatest innovation of all time

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            We’re going to have to. There’s no way we can feed 9 billion people, especially when the best farmland is either underwater or in a 20 year drought.

          • roundthings

            Why are you so concerned about monsanto? You say you aren’t employed by them but you get upset when I point out monsanto.
            Monsanto is by far the largest, monsanto’s goal is to control the food supply, monsanto GMO corn, soy, canola, sugar beets, etc are the ones poisoning the food supply.
            I am against all GMOs but Monsanto is the biggest culprit

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            LOL… YOU are the one who keeps bring up Monsanto. And ignoring the 5 other major GMO companies (all of which are larger than Monsanto) and the dozen or so smaller companies.

          • roundthings

            May be a computer issue, I decided to try again and change the way comments are listed and they showed up. I deleted one of my comments

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            So, after multiple accusations and threats because of my “deleting” comments… no apology, no “whoops, sorry about that”.

            Wow…

          • roundthings

            OK, sorry about that. Sorry I didn’t say sorry

          • roundthings

            Again, my previous comment is missing.
            You are a chicken shit

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            No. It’s not. You might dig through all of these… every comment you have posted is here. None have been deleted.

            And cursing at me is one of the things that will get you banned here. You can apologize, You can provide evidence for the baseless claims you’ve made against me or retract your claims and apologize. Then you can run along.

            You still haven’t provided any evidence that you even know what you are talking about. You, so far, have failed to understand the difference between a herbicide and a pesticide, you haven’t even bothered to look up the TWO pesticides that are currently approved for use in GMO plants… even though a simple google search would lead you to them in minutes.

            If you CHOOSE to not learn about reality, then there’s not much I can do to help you expect continue to refute your nonsense.

          • hyperzombie

            Banned within 10 years,,,LOL.

          • roundthings

            It will, mark my words

          • First Officer

            Sometimes you have to wonder if the reason some are afraid of glyphosate is that they can’t reason any better than an houseplant.

          • roundthings

            so, you control an argument by deleting posts?

          • susan

            How about you volunteer (with zombieboy) to be the first long term official independent study of toxic ‘cides drenched gmo foods? You can even drink Roundup if you like since all you shills always say it’s so safe…

            Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus of Plant Pathology, Purdue University. His experience: 50 years, a scientist studying plant diseases in the U.S. and around the world. He also has a 41-year military career as a retired Colonel, evaluating natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. His current project is coordinating the “Emergent Diseases and Pathogens Committee” as part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System under Homeland Security. He knows what the risks of GMO/Roundup are and spells then out in horrifying detail.
            http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/videos/food-and-environment/the-horrors-of-roundup.html

            “The farce of GMO industry safety studies”
            http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15529-the-farce-of-gmo-industry-safety-studies

          • hyperzombie

            Hey susan, haven’t seen you around in a while. Hope everything is going well with you and your health.

            And I know that you know that toxicology studies are never done on people because it is immoral and unethical, so why would you suggest that SR and I be in a study like that….

            Round up is so safe that people that purposely drank it to kill themselves survived over 85% of the time. Look it up there are 2 studies on it.

            I also know that you know that Dr Huber has no evidence of any harm from GMOs and has never published anything on his mysterious GMO caused illnesses.

            Anyway have a great day sunsan! :)

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Sigh. Already done.
            Mink PJ, Mandel JS, Lundin JI, Sceurman BK (November 2011). “Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: a review”. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 61 (2): 172–84.doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.07.006. PMID 21798302.
            Jump up^ Mink PJ, Mandel JS, Sceurman BK, Lundin JI (August 2012). “Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: a review”. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 63 (3): 440–52. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.05.012.PMID 22683395.
            Jump up^ Williams AL, Watson RE, DeSesso JM (2012). “Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis”. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 15 (1): 39–96. doi:10.1080/10937404.2012.632361. PMID 22202229.
            Jump up^ Kimmel GL, Kimmel CA, Williams AL, DeSesso JM (February 2013). “Evaluation of developmental toxicity studies of glyphosate with attention to cardiovascular development”. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 43 (2): 79–95. doi:10.3109/10408444.2012.749834. PMC 3581053. PMID 23286529.
            http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf

            Quit reading only websites that agree with you and start reading material that’s actually been peer-reviewed.

          • hyperzombie

            If you want to eat pesticide corn with bt toxin and e.coli in it you can.

            That would be Organic corn and it comes with a label.
            Organic corn varieties were created in a lab as well.

          • roundthings

            That’s ridiculous

          • susan

            Your nose is growing… Even a 2 year old can see through those lies.

            “Organic 101: Allowed and Prohibited Substances
            The basic rule for organic agriculture is to allow natural substances and prohibit synthetic.”
            http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/01/25/organic-101-allowed-and-prohibited-substances/

            “Have you heard GMO supporters say that Bt toxins are used in organic farming and they are safe? Organic farming use of Baccillus thuringiensis (Bt), a soil dwelling bacteria, bears no relationship to how Bt is used in genetic engineering in GMO crops. Even Monsanto’s own data show that it’s not safe. A re-analysis of Monsanto data found kidney & liver toxicity in rats fed GMO corn. Other studies show that natural Bt toxin has ill effects on laboratory animals, producing a potent immune response and enhancing the immune response to other substances. Have you heard enough?”
            http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13142

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Ah Susan, you didn’t read the USDA website did you. Just the blog. Bt crystals are an allowed pesticide on organic crops.

            Perhaps this will impress you… I doubt it.

            http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

            http://www.omri.org/simple-gml-search/results/rotenone

            http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/CoopExt/4DMG/VegFruit/organic.htm

            USDA _ allowed SYNTHETIC SYBSTANCES for Organic Farming
            http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div6&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7#7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354.2

          • hyperzombie

            Bt, e coli and organic pesticides are all not synthetic, so I didn’t state anything incorrectly.

          • First Officer

            The e. coli is in the Organic alfalfa sprouts. Killed 50 people too as late as 2011. That’s exactly 50 more than ever killed by GMO’s,

          • roundthings

            More people have died of cancer due to GMOs than any other ‘food’.
            GMOs are being traced to kidney disease and intestinal inflammation as well as other health problems. More will hit the news every year

          • First Officer

            Oh that’s right. That singular badly done pig study and kidney disease that only shows up in remote areas. Your accusations have more entropy than a Seneff meta study.

          • roundthings

            Of course, any study not funded by Monsanto is a bad study.
            Hundreds of them, all bad. Keep drinking the GMO Koolaid

          • First Officer

            I’m not the one with the SAS conspiracy theories.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Name one. Name one person whose cancer is directly attributable to GMOs and that statement is made by a licensed medical doctor with scientific evidence to support it.

            Name one.
            BTW: If you actually looked at the evidence, you would find that cancer rates in the US have been decreasing. And the US has had GMO foods for almost 25 years now.

            Isn’t it funny that when Grape Nuts stopped using GMOs, the package size decreased and the nutritional values also decreased?

          • roundthings

            How would the nutrition values decrease? Are you saying GMOs have a higher level of nutrients? Nope, every study says they have less.
            The cancer rate is higher now than ever before-50% of Americans will get cancer in their lifetime-the highest rate in history. Childhood cancers are higher than they have ever been.
            Monsanto is one of the causes-they are killing people

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            I’m only saying what the company posted. When they switched to non-GMO products, the box size was reduced (i.e. more expensive) and the nutritional value decreased.

          • roundthings

            Because of the smaller size.
            Most people will pay extra for healthier food. Chipotle recently went non GMO and raised their prices and sales are booming.
            Like I said, this is the beginning of the end for Monsanto

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Ummm… % nutrients based on SERVING SIZE (not box size) wouldn’t change. Just the number of serving per box.

            http://www.grubstreet.com/2014/01/grape-nuts-non-gmo.html

          • roundthings

            Then they had to have removed something from the formula. Obviously GMOs don’t have a higher nutritional content

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Of course GMO are more nutritional. That’s not the point. The point is that when switching to non-GMO products, they were forced to reduce the nutritional value of the cereal. Again, it’s a marketing decision.

            But totally defeats the purpose of using special crops.

            BTW: It’s also obvious that organic produce doesn’t have higher nutritional value either. Which is what we’ve been saying all along. There is no difference TO THE FOOD between GMO and organic and conventional.

            The genetic mod only allows the crop to protect itself from pests and from fast growing weeds that would otherwise cause the crop to fail. The fact that it can do so, means that very specific pesticides are used and only consumed by the pests which only harm pests specific to crops, instead of all animals everywhere. It also means that specific herbicides can be used instead of a general herbicide that is toxic to everything… including animals. Which is a major problem with organics.

            It’s been shown a thousand times over that these insect and plant specific compounds do not harm humans. Indeed, they cannot harm humans. Round up cannot harm any animal. It’s not that it doesn’t or specific concentrations. It cannot harm animals. Again, this is not the case for pesticides and herbicides available to organic farmers. Copper compounds are some of the most insidious compounds in existence.

            In my old lab, I had about 75 grams of a copper compound. Based on the LD-50, I could have killed every single person in my building a thousand times over. And it would have been an extremely painful death. But those compounds are allowed in organic farming. I’ve posted the links several times here. Look it up on the USDA website.

          • roundthings

            Your entire post is a lie. Waste of time to refute specific points because they’re all wrong

          • roundthings

            My last post went deleted.
            Guess the discussion ends here

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            You post was not deleted. There is nothing in the deleted or spam queue for Disqus for this blog.

            The discussion ended a long time ago, because you ignore actual facts and choose to make up your own.

          • roundthings

            You’re funny and sad at the same time.
            Find another employer, Monsanto is going down

          • susan

            Oh they are causing serious health issues but without labeling, there is no traceability, no accountability and no liability… I think this is the reason Monsanto & goons have spent nearly 100 million (known) dollars fighting labeling so far….

            NEW!!!!

            Beijing food conference: “Protect survival of human race.”

            http://www.renewablefarming.com/blog/2014/08/beijing-food-conference-protect-survival-of-human-race

            Posted 2014-08-02

            “How can the U.S. regain the China corn import market? That’s the question asked and topic talked about the most at this week’s U.S. Grains Council delegates meeting.”

            That quote on the website agriculture.com comes from Mike McGinnis on July 29, 2014. Mike adds:

            “During
            the morning session in Omaha, Nebraska, speaker after speaker addressed
            the disruption in U.S. corn shipments to China. The import ban that
            began in November 2013, following the detection of MIR 162, has caused
            upwards of $4.0 billion of losses for the corn and soybean industries,
            according to industry economic studies.”

            China is sending strong signals about GMOs to global grain markets: One
            of those messages is that a rising number of influential Chinese
            are wary of health threats from GMO grains and their possible toxins,
            especially residues of glyphosate.

            China’s
            refusal to approve Syngenta’s corn containing a Bt protein known as MIR
            162 is just one indicator of deeper concerns about GMOs. China now also
            insists that distillers dry grains from ethanol production must be
            certified free of traits not approved by Chinese import authorities.

            This is happening even though China’s ag ministry has been funding Chinese GMO research.

            Chinese
            citizens, linked in their millions via social networks on the web, are
            expressing more and more awareness of health concerns imposed by
            transgenic crops. Here’s an example of what Chinese folks can find on
            the blog site of Mr. Chen I-Wan, who was instrumental in assembling and
            hosting presenters for the Beijing conference. Visit this link:

            http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102uyv3.html

            U.S. corn and soybean growers
            touring Chinese feed mills and livestock production firms in the past
            few weeks report many questions from ordinary Chinese consumers,
            challenging the safety of GMO corn and soybeans.

            Typically,
            our visiting American farmers assure their Chinese hosts that U.S. GMO
            foods are safe. But the data… hard clinical trials from around the
            world… and Chinese experience itself are intensifying their doubts,
            even among Chinese ag ministry officials. The fact that more than 50
            nations, including Russia, curb GMO use sends another strong warning.

            Only
            in America is there such a virtual union of major transgenic seed and
            chemical firms, USDA, EPA and U.S. State Department, determined to
            promote genetic engineering and sell it to a world which seriously
            doubts the technology’s safety and economic value.

            The July 25-26 “Food Safety & Sustainable Agriculture Forum 2014” in Beijing
            was organized by the China Development Strategy Research Society, an
            official government advisory group to China’s central government. The
            scientific and professional credentials of presenters invited to this
            conference are so solid that the videos, interviews and transcripts
            flowing to the worldwide public will have a powerful impact.

            The
            kind of news generated by this conference is going viral in China and
            worldwide. It will get little or any media coverage in the U.S. ag
            media, but it doesn’t need much media coverage to reach consumers. For
            example in March 2014, a Chinese broadcasting personality, Cui
            Yong-yuan, visited the U.S. and created an hour-long documentary
            critical of GMOs. It was seen by more than 200 million Chinese. Not on
            China’s broadcast TV, but on a wide array of internet social networks
            and sites like YouTube.

            Bob Streit, Iowa crop consultant, just returned from the Beijing conference,
            where he presented an agronomic overview of GMO corn and soybean
            production problems in the Midwest. That included resistant weeds,
            disease vulnerability and early die-down.

            Streit
            expects that the number of nations willing to import GMO grains, or
            grow them at home, will continue shrinking as more facts about
            GMO-linked human and animal health pathologies are documented. About 50
            nations curb growth or imports of GMOs. The remaining big overseas
            market for the U.S. is China — precisely the location of this
            conference.

            For
            example, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist at MIT, was
            blunt: “Pesticide residues, particularly glyphosate, and the processing
            chemicals, particularly hexane, in soy foods are causative in the
            epidemics we are seeing in China in autism, infertility and Parkinson’s
            disease.”

            Elena Sharoykina, co-founder and director of the National Association for Genetic Safety (NAGS) in Russia, was
            one of several key people instrumental in banning GMO imports into
            Russia. This group has conducted replicated, long-term studies on
            feeding GMOs to mammals. Conclusion: “The study results shown a
            significant negative impact of feed containing GMO ingredients on
            reproductive functions and health of laboratory animals.”

            This group and other scientific bodies are preparing a larger multi-national study on the influence of GMOs on animals’ health.

            Streit expects that as more U.S. customer nations resist GMO imports, the price of corn and soybeans carrying GMO traits will fall relative to conventional, certified non-GMO corn and soybeans.

            “The
            non-GMO premium per bushel will probably climb to $1.50 for corn and
            $3.50 for soybeans,” he says. “In today’s lower ranges of cash grain
            prices, that could be the difference between black ink and red ink.”

            Streit adds that lower seed costs for conventional corn and soybeans offer further savings to widen profit margins.

            From what we’re seeing in our WakeUP clients’ fields,
            weed control is rapidly becoming more effective in conventional corn
            and soybeans than in fields sprayed with glyphosate and encountering
            resistant weeds. We’re frequently receiving calls from growers who are
            seeing widening patches of glyphosate resistant weeds. This experience
            is making them wary of relying on the “next generation” GMO-linked
            combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D herbicides.

            At the conference, Streit presented an overview of how U.S. producers can build a reliable, profitable market channel
            for non-GMO crops. He proposed building on the concept already
            operating in Brazil: A producer-led marketing association to produce,
            assemble, certify and deliver non-GMO corn, soybeans and other products
            to domestic and export markets. This group would encompass North and
            South America, to assure buyers like China of a year-round, reliable
            supply.

            Currently,
            U.S. farmers raising non-GMO corn and soybeans face fragmented
            marketing channels. Premium-price, non-GMO buyers are often many miles
            away, so trucking costs eat most of the price advantage. But as non-GMO
            premiums and volume build, the innovators with non-GMO crops will be
            ready to cash in.

            The intensity and unity of the 350 participants in the Beijing conference presents a strong signal
            that leading scientists, human health experts and a wide range of
            global consumers will soon overpower U.S. corporate and government
            defense of genetically engineered crops. That happened in Europe — and
            BASF discontinued its GMO research and marketing efforts there.

            Here is the official “Beijing Declaration” written by Chinese leaders of the July 25-26 Forum.
            Keep in mind that organizers of the forum are part of an official
            Chinese government agency. More than 40 top Chinese government
            officials attended the conference. Many were military generals. Some
            military commanders have already declared GMO-source foods off-limits to
            their troops.

            BEIJING DECLARATION

            July 26, 2014 (English translation from the original Chinese document)

            We
            are a gathering of scientists and agricultural practitioners from 13
            countries and regions, and five continents, who have attended the Food
            Safety and Sustainable Agriculture Forum 2014 in Beijing, China, July
            25-26.

            The
            experience in the cultivation and consumption of GMO, and the
            definitive scientific facts and analysis presented, have led us to the
            conclusion that arguably GMO technology does not increase productive
            yield. On the contrary, this has led to the increase in the application
            of pesticides, causing calamitous damage to the ecosystem upon which the
            survival of humankind depends.

            The
            commercial application of GMO technology in agriculture for the last
            two decades has exposed the entire planet and the very existence of
            humankind to serious threats.

            We
            unanimously condemn the GMO vested interests in usurping the right of
            the human race to use natural seed resources for its sustainable
            survival and development. While the undeniable evidence of the dangers
            of GMO is exposed, the facts have been denied and suppressed, the media
            have been manipulated in order to freely expand the production of GMOs,
            and the global crisis has been pushed to new heights.

            We
            believe that scientific research must be subordinate to the welfare and
            long term development of humankind, and should never be the tools to
            profit a few persons or interest groups. Agricultural production is the
            basis for human survival. To protect agricultural production and the
            earth, our home base, we hereby call upon all people with a conscience
            to:

            1. Stop all commercial production of agricultural GMOs, and strictly prohibit the proliferation of GMOs outside laboratories.

            2.
            Open public discussion and stop suppressing dissenting views and
            independent scientific research to ensure public knowledge and
            expression. Increase scientific research on the negative effects of GMO
            technology.

            3.
            Protect biodiversity, return the rights to own and utilize seeds to the
            cultivators and the people, and fight against seed monopoly. Protect
            people’s freedom to acquire safe food and object to food monopoly and
            hegemony of a few commercial enterprises.

            4. Call for a rational and sustainable mode of agriculture to return it to Mother Nature.

            Mankind has no retreat confronting the threats brought
            about by the overall proliferation of GMO products. Let us take up the
            holy responsibility and take joint action to protect the health and
            survival of the human race!

            sorry the text went wonky, read it at the link..

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            And still more logical fallacies. You are talking about markets and economy, not the science of GMOs.

            Labeling laws, all that have been attempted so far, only apply where GMOs compete directly with organic products (i.e. grocery stores). Which is the entire problem behind the laws… they are not universal. A bag of chips in a grocery store must be labeled, but a bag of chips in the deli next door to the grocery store does not have to be labeled.

            If you’ve looked at who is fighting the labeling laws, have you looked at who is promoting them? The organic food industry. They are promoting fear in order to sell products that are not noticeably different from anything else on the market.

          • Mlema

            We haven’t been eating gmo for twenty years. We’ve been eating food products, without proteins, that have been derived from gmo. Besides, you can’t talk about gmo as a monolithic entity. Some gmos are lower risk due to the species involved or the tech used.

          • Mlema

            It wasn’t a cancer study. It was a toxicity study. Read the paper and ignore Seralini’s bluster. The paper was retracted due to pressure from the industry. Reviewers could find nothing wrong with it so they said they were retracting it due to “inconclusive results”. No paper has ever been retracted for inconclusive results.

  • Lakin

    I count over 40 duplicates. Go down to the part that says, “The Failure of Mere Lists” and read
    that paragraph and the sentence below it which ends with, “The research
    they were looking for was number 4 in that list.”
    Now
    look at the pic right next to it. Look at #3 and look at #4. Someone
    please tell me how anyone can take biofortified serious after
    recognizing they have no idea what is on their own list! Back to the
    list with over 40 duplicates. First of all there are several studies
    on that list that do not suggest safety like the study in #438 which
    states, “with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn
    MON863 is a safe product.” so this claim is already debunked. #130 on
    the list states, “An equilibrium in the number research groups
    suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of
    GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as
    the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still
    serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be
    noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology
    companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants.” This list is
    primarily from biotech funded sources. They have another list of only
    126 independently funded studies suggesting about 2/3 or more of the
    studies were funded by the biotech companies and their list only says
    independently funded and not conducted by independent researchers. http://www.biofortified.org/…/stud…/independent-funding/

    At
    least 43 duplicates 1. #4 the exact same study as #3 2. #52 same
    exact study as #50 3. #63 same exact study as #61 4. #71 same study as
    #70 posted twice 5. #85 same exact study as #836. #86 same exact
    study as # 847. #96 same exact study as #938. #113 same exact study as
    #1099. #116 same exact study as #118 10.#133 same exact study as #132
    11. #156 same exact study as #155 12. #163 same exact study as
    #161 13. #174 same exact study as #170 14. #196 same exact study
    as #195 15. #200 same exact study as #198 16. #212 same exact
    study as #211 17. #218 same exact study as #215 18. #252 same
    exact study as #250 19. #258 same exact study as #256 20. #304
    same exact study as #303 21. #315 same exact study as #75 22.
    #320 same exact study as #150 23. #364 same exact study as #362
    24. #366 same exact study as #360 25. #369 same exact study as #120
    26. #374 same exact study as #371 27. #393 same exact study
    as #390 28. #396 same exact study as #392 29. #397 same exact
    study as #391 30. #411 same exact report as # 410 31. #429 same
    exact study as #426 32. #471 same exact study as #469 33. #491
    same exact study as #484 34. #492 same exact study as #482 35.
    #493 same exact study as #483 36. #500 same exact study as #489
    37. #509 same exact study as #486 38. #510 same exact study as #487
    39. #523 same exact study as #522 40. #528 same exact study as #487
    41. #538 same exact study as #536 42. #546 same exact study as
    #544 43. #593 same exact study as #420

    At least 94 references to no longer approved or never approved GE crops

    Of the individual relevant long term health studies :
    6 suggest potentially adverse unintended effects.(309, 310, 312, 313, 542, 587)
    2 suggest no unintended consequences, but do not meet the minimum criteria to suggest long term safety.(418, 419)
    Studies with independent funding http://www.biofortified.org
    This is a partial list of independently-funded studies on genetically engineered crops that we have collected as part of the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA). This list is out of date as we …

  • Lakin

    If
    you look through the 600 study list you will see many problems, like
    most of these studies are not relevant(didn’t use GE foods people
    currently consume, weren’t feeding trials, didn’t use mammals, didn’t
    use real health parameters and instead just looked at carcass weight,
    etc.).

    #1
    only seems to look at meat quality and other parameters with little
    relevance to human health, Journal of Animal Science is part of FASS https://www.asas.org/about-asas which is involved with Monsanto http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20571053-my-great…
    #2 used Bt176 which is no longer approved for human consumption.
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20586581-my-great…
    #3 and #4 are the exact same study referenced twice and chickens aren’t good subjects to assess human health risks anyway.
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20588206-my-great…
    #5 uses chickens.
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20665607-my-great…
    #6 uses Bt176.
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20665607-my-great…
    #7, 8, 9, 10 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not.
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20712799-my-great…
    #11 uses unapproved wheat.
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20720560-my-great…
    #12 not a GMO feeding trial.
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20725980-great-big…
    #13 the sheep ate young Bt cotton plants and not cottonseed oil like humans would consume.
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20750345-great-big…
    #14 is an unapproved variety and only looks at nutrient content and not an animal feeding trial, FASS journal
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20766143-great-big…
    #15 short term, was conducted by Pioneer
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20811432-great-big…
    #16 is not an animal feeding trial and uses unapproved GE rice
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20819191-great-big…
    #17 is a small part of environmental assessment but nothing to do with health.
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20840490-great-big…
    #18
    and #19 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    and uses hens, Journal of Applied Poultry Research and Poultry Science
    are part of FASS http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=51 which is involved with Monsanto http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20862663-great-big…
    #20 uses an unapproved rice.
    More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/…/20877220-great-big…
    #21 primarily used subjects and parameters that are not relevant to human health
    #22 used hens
    #23 only seems to look at carcass weight, milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #24 not a long term feeding trial
    #25 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #26 used fish
    #27 used fish, suggests potential negative impact
    #28 used Bt176, Journal of Dairy Science is part of FASS http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=51 which is involved with Monsanto http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp
    #29 used Bt176, FASS journal
    #30 not a feeding trial
    #31 not a long term feeding trial
    #32 not a long term feeding trial
    #33 not a long term feeding trial
    #34 not a feeding trial
    #35 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #36 and #37 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, FASS journal
    #38 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not,and performance
    #39 not a feeding trial, nothing to do with health
    #40 not a feeding trial
    #41 and #42 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #43 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #44 only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #45 unapproved variety, suggests potential negative impact possibly due to higher glucosinolate in transgenic feed.
    #46 only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #47 unapproved variety
    #48 not a feeding trial
    #49 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #50
    Does not meet minimum chronic toxicology/carcinogenicity standards to
    suggest long term safety. Used too few subjects(less than 50 per sex,
    per dose) to suggest safety, is not a lifelong study, only used one sex,
    not repeated with second species, etc.
    History and Mission http://www.asas.org

  • Lakin

    #51
    Does not meet minimum chronic toxicology/carcinogenicity standards to
    suggest long term safety. Used too few subjects(less than 50 per sex,
    per dose) to suggest safety, is not a lifelong study, not repeated with
    second species, etc.
    #52 same exact study as #50
    #53 used broiler chickens, FASS journal
    #54 used broiler chickens, FASS journal
    #55 used Bt176 and broiler chickens, Novartis study, FASS journal
    #56 perforance, FASS journal
    #57 performance, FASS journal
    #58 Monsanto study on glyphosate
    #59 unapproved variety
    #60
    only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little
    relevance to human health, Pioneer researchers, FASS journal
    #61 and #63 are the same study posted twice, used fish
    #62 study regarding isoflavones, not specific to GMO
    #63 see #61
    #64 unapproved variety
    #65 not a long term feeding trial
    #66 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #67 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #68 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #69 unapproved variety
    #70 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #71 same study as #70 posted twice
    #72
    only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little
    relevance to human health, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #73
    only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little
    relevance to human health , Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #74 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #75 not a feeding trial
    #76 “the promoter fragment was detected in the leukocyte, head kidney and muscle only of fish fed the GM SBM diet”
    #77
    “The cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter fragment (220 bp) of the GM
    SBM was detected in the muscle of fish receiving both levels of GM SBM
    diet by nested PCR”
    #78 only seem to look at whether the ARM is degraded or not, used chickens
    #79 used chickens
    #80 ? can’t find study
    #81 not a feeding trial, “the Bt maize cultivars collectively exhibited lower AMF colonization compared to the parental lines”
    #82
    review, Studies reviewed used animals not physiologically comparable to
    humans, used too few subjects to suggest safety or were not life-long
    experiments. 6 of the 24 studies also used varities of GE feed not
    currently consumed by humans. None of the studies reviewed meet the
    minimum criteria to suggest long term safety.
    #83 unapproved variety
    #84 unapproved varieties
    #85 same exact study as #83
    #86 same exact study as # 84
    #87 not a feeding trial
    #88 reviewed primarily bird feeding trials
    #89 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not.
    #90 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, FASS journal
    #91 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not.
    #92 performance
    #93 only seems to look at feed efficiency and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #94 Bt176
    #95 not in English
    #96 same exact study as #93
    #97
    not a feeding trial. “All three viruses were unstable and most of the
    progeny viruses had lost the inserted sequences between 2 and 4 weeks
    post-inoculation.”
    #98 primarily looks at feed efficiency and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #99 not a long term feeding trial
    #100 not a feeding trial.

  • Lakin

    #101 not a feeding trial.
    #102 not a feeding trial.
    #103
    only seems to look at feed efficiency, milk production and other
    parameters with little relevance to human health, GE alfalfa hay is not
    consumed by humans, FASS journal
    #104
    only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little
    relevance to human health, GE alfalfa hay is not consumed by humans,
    FASS journal
    #105 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #106 not a long term feeding trial
    #107 not a long term feeding trial
    #108 not a feeding trial, DuPont study
    #109
    only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little
    relevance to human health, Monsanto study, FASS journal

    #110 unapproved variety, only seems to look at carcass weight and other
    parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #111 unapproved variety, FASS journal
    #112 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #113 same exact study as #109
    #114 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Syngenta
    #115 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Syngenta, FASS journal
    #116 same exact study as #118
    #117 not in English
    #118 same exact study as #116
    #119 feed not in form humans consume
    #120 not a feeding trial
    #121 not a long term feeding trial
    #122
    “these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to
    the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended
    direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification
    cannot be excluded.”
    #123 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, used chickens
    #124 not a feeding trial, unapproved varieties
    #125 not a feeding trial, DuPont
    #126 not a feeding trial, used Bt176
    #127 not a feeding trial
    #128 not a feeding trial
    #129 not a feeding trial
    #130
    “An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis
    of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly
    maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective
    conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was
    currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these
    studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of
    commercializing these GM plants.”
    #131 unapproved variety
    #132 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #133 same exact study as #132
    *#134 funded by Monsanto
    #139 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #140 Dow study, humans don’t eat cottoneed meal
    #141 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #142 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety,
    #143 not a feeding trial, unapproved varieties
    #144
    only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not,
    “Plasmid DNA that had previously been exposed to freshly sampled ovine
    saliva was capable of transforming competent Escherichia coli cells to
    ampicillin resistance even after 24 h, implying that DNA released from
    the diet could provide a source of transforming DNA in the oral cavity
    of sheep.”
    #145 not a feeding trial
    #146 not a feeding trial
    #147 EFSA review of primarily Monsanto data
    #148 EFSA review of primarily Monsanto data
    #149 used Bt176
    #150 not a feeding trial, used Bt176

  • Lakin

    #151 unapproved varieties
    #152 used chickens
    #153 not a feeding trial
    #154 not a feeding trial
    #155 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #156 same exact study as #155
    #157 unapproved variety, suggests potential negative impact
    #158 not a toxicology study
    #159 unapproved variety, suggests potential negative impact
    #160 performance, Pioneer study, FASS journal
    #161 performance, Pioneer/Dow study, FASS journal
    #162 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #163 same exact study as #161
    #164 not a feeding trial, used Bt176
    #165 not a feeding trial
    #166 suggests potential negative impact
    #167 only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #168 only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #169 only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #170 used Bt176 and quails
    #171 review
    #172 review
    #173
    reviewed poultry studies primarily conducted by biotech companies, pig
    studies which primarily look at carcass quality measurements and other
    parameters with little relevance to human health, cattle studies which
    primarily look at carcass quality measurements, milk production and
    other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #174 same exact study as #170
    #175 review
    #176 review
    #177 review
    #178
    reviewed poultry studies, pig studies which primarily look at carcass
    quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human
    health or GE foods not approved, cattle studies which primarily look at
    carcass quality measurements, milk production and other parameters with
    little relevance to human health or used silage not consumed by humans
    #179 not a long term feeding trial
    #180
    only seems to look at carcass quality measurements, milk production and
    other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #181 feed not in form humans consume, FASS journal
    #182 feed not in form humans consume, Syngenta study, FASS journal
    #183 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #184 not a feeding trial
    #185 fish
    #186 fish
    #187 didn’t use whole food, Monsanto study
    #188 review
    #189 only seems to look at digestibility, ruminants not comparable for human digestion
    #190 used chickens, FASS journal
    #191 performance,FASS journal
    #192 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial
    #193 not a feeding trial
    #194 not a long term feeding trial
    #195 unapproved variety
    #196 same exact study as #195
    #197 not a feeding trial
    #198
    only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little
    relevance to human health, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #199
    only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little
    relevance to human health, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #200 same exact study as #198

  • Lakin

    #201 not a feeding trial
    #202 not a feeding trial
    #203 not a health study
    #204 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not.
    #205 not a feeding trial
    #206 only seems to look at body weight gain and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #207 used hens
    #208 used chickens
    #209 used quails
    #210 used chickens, unapproved variety
    #211 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #212 same exact study as #211
    #213 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #214 short term, Monsanto study
    #215 performance, Monsanto study
    #216 short term, Monsanto study
    #217 review, Monsanto study
    #218 same exact study as #215
    #219 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #220 short term, Monsanto study
    #221 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #222 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #223 short term, Monsanto study
    #224 didn’t use whole food, Monsanto study
    #225 feed not in form humans consume it, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #226 unapproved variety
    #227 unapproved variety
    #228 short term, Pioneer study
    #229 unapproved variety, Pioneer study
    #230 Monsanto study,
    #231
    used fish, “the relative size of the spleen showed significant
    differences between fish fed the genetically modified soy diet compared
    with fish fed the nGM soybeans.”
    #232
    used fish, “changes in the glucose transport mechanism and intestinal
    maltase enzyme activity in the gastrointestinal tract warrant further
    studies.”
    #233 feed not in form humans consume, it FASS journal
    #234 didn’t use whole food, Bayer study
    #235 didn’t use whole food, Bayer study
    #236 not a feeding trial
    #237 not a long term feeding trial
    #238 only feeding was with soy leaves not consumed by humans
    #239 not a feeding trial
    #240 only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #241 unapproved variety, Ventria study
    #242 not in form consumed by humans, FASS journal
    #243
    only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other
    parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #244 only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #245 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #246 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #247 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #248 not a feeding trial
    #249 not a feeding trial
    #250 used hens, FASS journal

  • Lakin

    #251 performance, used hens, FASS journal
    #252 same exact study as #250
    #253 unapproved variety
    #254 not a feeding trial
    #255 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, Monsanto study
    #256 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #257 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #258 same exact study as #256
    #259 not a feeding trial
    #260 only looks at fiber digestibility, etc. with little relevance to human health
    #261 unapproved variety, “Taking into account some deviations, it seems reasonable to undertake a long-term feeding study”
    #262 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #263 unapproved variety, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #264 unapproved variety, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #265 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #266 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study
    #267 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study
    #268 not a feeding trial
    #269 not a feeding trial
    #270 performance, FASS journal
    #271 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #272 suggested some kidney and liver damage in GE fed group was observed
    #273 not a feeding trial
    #274
    not a feeding trial, “Many transgenic proteins have identical stretches
    of six or seven amino acids in common with allergenic proteins.”
    #275 not a feeding trial
    #276 not a feeding trial
    #277 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #278 review
    #279 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial
    #280 unapproved variety
    #281
    unapproved variety “The reaction might be related to oxidative stress
    linked to the altered chemical composition of potato tubers resulting
    from transgenesis, changed concentrations of some minerals or
    biologically active substances.”
    #282 not specific to GMO, FASS journal
    #283
    not a feeding trial, comment about unapproved variety, Kuiper worked
    with ILSI which has affiliation with biotech companies
    #284 ?, FASS journal
    #285 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #286 not a feeding trial, DuPont study
    #287 not a feeding trial, DuPont study
    #288 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #289 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #290 performance, used chickens
    #291 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #292 feed not in form humans consume, used fish, Monsanto study
    #293 not a feeding trial
    #294 not a feeding trial
    #295 not a feeding trial
    #296 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #297 not a feeding trial
    #298 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #299 short term
    #300 reference has no title listed

  • Lakin

    #301 unapproved variety
    #302 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #303 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #304 same exact study as #303
    #305 used Bt176
    #306 short term, DuPont study
    #307 DuPont study on yeast
    #308 only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #309
    “a significant lowering of nucleoplasmic and nucleolar splicing factors
    as well as a perichromatin granule accumulation in GM-fed mice”
    #310 “our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence hepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice”
    #311 “some modifications occur in hepatocyte nuclei of mice fed on GM soybean.”
    #312 “GM soybean intake can influence some liver features during ageing”
    #313 “a diet containing significant amount of GM food seems to influence the zymogen synthesis and processing.”
    #314 short term, DuPont study
    #315 same exact study as #75
    #316 performance, used chickens
    #317 not a feeding trial, The Nature Conservancy received funding from Monsanto, DuPont, etc.
    #318 ? can’t find study
    #319 didn’t use whole food, Pioneer study
    #320 same exact study as #150
    #321 not in English
    #322 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #323 performance, used chickens, Pioneer study, FASS journal
    #324 performance, used chickens, Pioneer study
    #325 not a feeding trial
    #326 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #327 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #328 performance, used chickens, Pioneer study, FASS journal
    #329 performance, used chickens, DuPont study, FASS journal
    #330 used chickens, Pioneer study, FASS journal
    #331 used hens
    #332 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #333 not a feeding trial
    #334 used chickens, FASS journal
    #335 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #336 unapproved variety
    #337 not a feeding trial
    #338 not a feeding trial
    #339 not a long term feeding trial
    #340 not a long term feeding trial
    #341 review, Monsanto study
    #342 not a long term feeding trial
    #343 unapproved variety
    #344 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #345
    only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, “Three
    of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer
    from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel”
    #346 unapproved variety
    #347 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial, Bayer study
    #348 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #349 not a feeding trial
    #350 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

  • roundthings

    Serious concerns about the environmental and health risks
    #54 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392248/

    The Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods
    GM food not approved for food or feed anywhere in the world found in food supply.
    #80 http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nbt0508-478
    EU to monitor for Chinese GM rice

    It is incorrect to assume that US federal-agency decisions on genetically modified (GM) organisms are always based on sound science
    #144. http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/476283b

    Biotechnology: US Congress right to halt GM salmon
    USDA regulations have a critical weakness.
    #150 http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nbt0911-772

    The release of the Cry1Ab protein by roots is a common phenomenon with transgenic Bt corn
    #204 http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0038071701001614

    The use of genetically modified crops may result in negative effects on the natural enemies of crop pests.
    #358 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/…/j.0013-8703…/abstract

    Combination of dormant seed and herbicide resistance makes GM glyphosate-resistant canola a new and difficult weed.
    #842 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22258428

    It is currently impossible to prevent gene flow between sexually compatible species in the same area. Pollen and seeds disperse too easily and too far to make containment practical.
    #854 http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nbt0602-542

    HGT from transgenic plants to microbes could have an environmental impact at a frequency approximately a trillion times lower than the current risk assessment literature estimates the frequency to be
    #974 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340480

    The combined observations of decreased photosynthetic parameters and low nutrient availability in glyphosate-treated plants may explain potential adverse effects of glyphosate in GR soybeans.
    #1158 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf904342t

    Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?
    #1303 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17987446

    Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.
    #1367 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835
    ,etc.

  • Lakin

    #351 unapproved variety
    #352 not a long term feeding trial
    #353 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #354 not a GE food
    #355 unapproved variety, Monsanto study
    #356 unapproved variety, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #357 unapproved variety, Monsanto study
    #358 performance, FASS journal
    #359 performance, FASS journal
    #360 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, FASS journal
    #361 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #362
    only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, milk
    production and other parameters with little relevance to human health,
    FASS journal
    #363 review
    #364 same exact study as #362
    #365 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #366 same exact study as #360
    #367 not a feeding trial
    #368 not a long term feeding trial
    #369 same exact study as #120
    #370 not specific to GMO
    #371 only seems to look at body weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #372 performance
    #373 performance, used chickens, FASS journal
    #374 same exact study as #371
    #375 performance, used chickens, FASS journal
    #376 unapproved variety, “the present animal study did not enable us to conclude on the safety of the GM food.”
    #377 unapproved variety
    #378 “significant differences were noted in the activity of Ca(2+) and Na(+)/K(+) ATPase brush border enzymes”
    #379 not a feeding trial
    #380 unapproved variety
    #381 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, FASS journal
    #382 used chickens
    #383 used chickens
    #384 not a feeding trial
    #385 not a feeding trial
    #386 used hens, FASS journal
    #387 unapproved variety, used chickens
    #388 not a feeding trial, Syngenta, Pioneer, Monsanto, Dow study
    #389 used chickens
    #390 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #391 only seems to look at body weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #392 only seems to look at digestibility of crude protein and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #393 same exact study as #390
    #394 ? can’t find study, FASS journal
    #395 ? can’t find study
    #396 same exact study as #392
    #397 same exact study as #391
    #398 unapproved variety
    #399 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #400 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not

  • Lakin

    #401 unapproved variety, Monsanto study
    #402 not a feeding trial
    #403 not a feeding trial
    #404 not a feeding trial
    #405 performance, used chickens, FASS journal
    #406 not a long term feeding trial FASS journal
    #407 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #408 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #409 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #410 feed not in form humans consume
    #411 same exact report as # 410
    #412 performance, feed not in form humans consume
    #413 performance, feed not in form humans consume, FASS journal
    #414 feed not in form humans consume, FASS journal
    #415 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #416
    used fish, “GM maize seemed to induce significant changes in white
    blood cell populations which are associated with an immune response.”
    #417
    used fish, “Spleen somatic index was significantly larger in fish
    groups fed GM FFSBM compared to groups fed nGM FFSBM, which might
    indicate a possible immune response exerted by the GM soybeans.”
    #418
    Does not meet minimum chronic toxicology/carcinogenicity standards to
    suggest long term safety. Used too few subjects(less than 50 per sex,
    per dose) to suggest safety, only one dose level, not repeated with
    second species, etc. low impact
    #419
    Does not meet minimum chronic toxicology/carcinogenicity standards to
    suggest long term safety. Used too few subjects(less than 50 per sex,
    per dose) to suggest safety, only one dose level, is not a lifelong
    study, not repeated with second species, etc. low impact
    #420 used fish
    #421 used fish
    #422 used fish
    #423 not a feeding trial, Syngenta study
    #424 not a feeding trial
    #425 used chickens, FASS journal
    #426 used hens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #427 used hens, FASS journal
    #428 used hens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #429 same exact study as #426
    #430 not a feeding trial
    #431 used quails, FASS journal
    #432 used quails, FASS journal
    #433 unapproved variety
    #434 not specific to GMO
    #435 not specific to GMO
    #436 not specific to GMO
    #437 EFSA review of mostly Monsanto data
    #438 “with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.”
    #439 not a feeding trial
    #440 feed not in form humans consume
    #441
    only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, “one
    liver and one kidney sample from the pigs (different animals) were
    positive for a 278-bp fragment of the transgenic cp4 epsps (denoted
    F3).”
    #442 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #443 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not
    #444 not a feeding trial
    #445 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #446 not a feeding trial
    #447 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #448 short term feeding trial
    #449 used chickens, Monsanto study
    #450 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

  • Lakin

    #451 performance, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #452 unapproved variety
    #453
    only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with
    little relevance to human health, Pioneer/Dow study, FASS journal
    #454 unapproved variety
    #455 feed not in form humans consume
    #456 feed not in form humans consume
    #457 feed not in form humans consume
    #458
    only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, milk
    production and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #459 feed not in form humans consume, Monsanto study
    #460 used fish
    #461 not a feeding trial
    #462 not specific to GMO
    #463 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal
    #464 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #465 feed not in form humans consume, FASS journal
    #466 performance, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #467 feed not in form humans consume, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #468
    only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with
    little relevance to human health, Pioneer study, FASS journal
    #469
    only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with
    little relevance to human health, Pioneer/Dow study, FASS journal
    #470
    only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with
    little relevance to human health, Pioneer/Dow study, FASS journal
    #471 same exact study as #469
    #472 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #473 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #474 not a feeding trial
    #475
    only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little
    relevance to human health, ruminants not comparable for human digestion
    #476 only seems to look at meat quality and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #477 performance, used chickens
    #478 unapproved variety
    #479 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety
    #480 unapproved variety
    #481 not a feeding trial
    #482 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #483 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #484 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #485 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #486 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #487 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #488 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #489 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #490 not a feeding trial
    #491 same exact study as #484
    #492 same exact study as #482
    #493 same exact study as #483
    #494 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #495 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #496 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #497 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #498 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #499 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #500 same exact study as #489

  • Lakin

    #501 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #502 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #503 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #504 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #505 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #506 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #507 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #508 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #509 same exact study as #486
    #510 same exact study as #487
    #511 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study
    #512 unapproved variety
    #513 short term
    #514 not specific to GMO
    #515 not a feeding trial
    #516 not a feeding trial
    #517 unapproved variety
    #518 unapproved variety
    #519 used Bt176, used chickens
    #520 used Bt176, used chickens
    #521 used Bt176, used chickens
    #522 used Bt176
    #523 same exact study as #522
    #524
    only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, “in
    treated group, fragments of 35S and CP4 epsps soybean genes were found
    in several samples.”
    #525
    “A significant increase in lactic dehydrogenase, mainly concerning the
    lactic dehydrogenase-1 isoenzyme was found in heart , skeletal muscle
    and kidney of treated kids, thus suggesting a change in the local
    production of the enzyme.”
    #526 only seems to look at digestion
    #527
    “a significant increase of lactic dehydrogenase, mainly concerning the
    LDH1 isoenzyme was found in particular in kidney and heart but not in
    the muscle, thus suggesting a potential alteration in the local
    production of the enzyme.”
    #528 same exact study as #487
    #529 not a feeding trial
    #530 not in English
    #531 not in English
    #532 not a feeding trial
    #533 not in English
    #534 not currently consumed
    #535 not a feeding trial, former Monsanto employee Alison Van Eenennaam http://www.fda.gov/…/VeterinaryMedicineAd…/UCM225072.pdf.
    #536
    only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with
    little relevance to human health, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #537 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Monsanto study
    #538 same exact study as #536
    #539 performance, Monsanto study, FASS journal
    #540
    not a GE feeding trial, “possible interaction in vivo of Cry proteins
    with the animal bowel which could induce changes in the physiological
    status of the intestine.”
    #541
    not a GE feeding trial, “Systemic immune responses were attained with
    doses of soluble Cry1Ac ranging from 0.1 to 100 microg”
    #542
    “In GM-fed mice of all ages considered, the number of perichromatin
    granules is higher and the nuclear pore density lower. Moreover, we
    found enlargements in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum in GM-fed mice
    Sertoli cells.”
    #543 not a feeding trial
    #544 not a feeding trial
    #545 not a feeding trial
    #546 same exact study as #544
    #547 not a feeding trial
    #548 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial
    #549 unapproved variety, used chickens
    #550 ? unapproved variety

  • Lakin

    #551 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial
    #552 “Alterations in immune responses were detected”
    #553 ? can’t find study
    #554
    “short-term feeding of Bt MON810 maize to weaned pigs resulted in
    increased feed consumption, less efficient conversion of feed to gain
    and a decrease in goblet cells/μm of duodenal villus. There was also a
    tendency for an increase in kidney weight”
    #555 unapproved variety
    #556 not used for human feed, FASS journal http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=51 which is involved with Monsanto http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp
    #557 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=51 which is involved with Monsanto http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp
    #558 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health
    #559 not a feeding trial
    #560 not in English
    #561 ? can’t find study
    #562 unapproved variety
    #563 used Bt176
    #564 used Bt176
    #565 study on glyphosate
    #567 feed not in form humans consume, Monsanto, FASS journal
    #568 feed not in form humans consume
    #569 not a feeding trial
    #570 unapproved variety
    #571 unapproved variety, used chickens
    #572 unapproved variety
    #573 unapproved variety
    #574 unapproved variety
    #575 not a feeding trial
    #576 not a feeding trial
    #577 not a feeding trial
    #578 not human food, used chickens, FASS journal
    #579 not human food, FASS journal
    #580 short term
    #581 unapproved variety
    #582 unapproved variety
    #583 not a feeding trial
    #584 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial
    #585 Pioneer study
    #586 “a minor increase in the genus Holdemania. As the role of Holdemania in the intestine is still under investigation”
    #587 suggests adverse impact was observed
    #588 differences were observed
    #589 not a feeding trial
    #590 not a feeding trial
    #591 not a feeding trial
    #592 unapproved variety
    #593 same exact study as #420
    #594
    used fish “The data suggest that Cry1Ab protein or other antigens in
    Bt-maize have local immunogenic effects in salmon DI.”
    #595 short term, Pioneer/DuPont study
    #596 review
    #597 not a feeding trial
    #599 not a feeding trial
    #600 not a feeding trial

    There
    really isn’t much here in terms of independent animal feeding studies
    using mammals that look at GE foods currently consumed by humans and use
    quality health parameters.
    Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) – Publications http://www.fass.org

  • Lakin

    Oh and the genetic literacy project does not contain 2,000+ studies affirming GMO safety. If you search mammal or animal on the Excel sheet, only 4 listings come up.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      Interesting, because I present way more studies than 4 in the original post. How come you didn’t mention them?

      Did you, perchance, actually read all those studies are just searched through the list?

      You do understand that human feeding trials are unethical and wouldn’t be expected to happen right?

  • Lakin

    Aside from all this, Monsanto struck a personal cord with me when my grandfather had to have half of his colon removed due to polyps, caused by Agent Orange. I guess this is why I have dedicated my life to researching this.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      So, you have decided that everything Monsanto does is wrong and evil because of this? That’s a huge logical fallacy.

      • Mlema

        Well, Monsanto has provided lots of other reasons to distrust them. In fact I would say that agent orange is their least offense because the government wanted it. That’s on all of us.

  • Mlema

    Need to leave out “that all show safety and value of” and replace with “on” for purposes of accuracy.

  • Mlema

    Please include this survey of feeding trials in your list – a definitive and scientific assessment. An older survey by this scientist is included on genera. I’ll submit this one today or tomorrow. It’s been around for a few years and really should be included. The full paper is available. I’ll try to get that here for you soon. It will give you a better idea of the true extent of safety assessment on gmo. Thanks

    • Mlema

      Ack! Sorry! I tried to delete this comment :(

  • Mlema

    http://www..nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296423
    This survey of feeding trials offers a scientific assessment of the literature on safety. It should be included in your list as a comprehensive overview.

  • Guest

    Y’know, I’m not sure what you’re hoping to accomplish with this list. But if you’d just link to the one survey you included:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
    and then link to this survey:
    http://stopogm.net/sites/stopogm.net/files/webfm/plataforma/domingo2review.pdf
    you’ve pretty much covered feeding studies, give or take a few. The studies you’ve chosen aren’t necessarily supportive of the “GMOs are safe to eat” claim. I don’t think you’ve read them if you’re trying to use them to support safety.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      You know, if you read the first line of the post you would have seen what I’m trying to accomplish

      “One of the complaints I hear most is “there are no GM food studies done by independents, it’s all company sponsored”. The other one I hear a lot is “there are no long term studies”.”

      • Guest

        Ok. Fair enough. But consider this: the first one you linked to is a survey of feeding trials. They’re on all different animals and GMOs. Most don’t have good controls and are looking at different things. I think some of the subsequent research you link to is actually studies that were included in that survey. There are only 2 studies above that you’ve linked to that might be appropriate for pertinence to humans – the ones on rats. And both of those show issues that should probably be looked at again with further research. All GMOs are different. They have different engineered traits. And since most of the time they’re used to feed animals that we will eventually eat, the research has mostly been to make sure they are, overall, healthy and don’t lose weight by eating GMOs. This doesn’t reflect on human consumption of GMOs.

        So, what I’m saying (sorry it took me so long to get there) is that a handful of studies on diffferent GMOs, on different animals, and looking at different things, doesn’t allow us to say it’s safe for humans to eat any particular GMO. I personally would like to see safety studies on any GMO I’m expected to eat as a food instead of just as an ingredient in processed food, which would have novel proteins removed. For example, we have GMO sweet corn now available to be eaten by people in the US. This is the first time, I believe, that people will actually be eating a bt food. I’d like to see that it was tested in feeding trials.

        • SmilodonsRetreat

          Everything you said has nothing to do with anything.

          There was a specific claim made. There was a specific claim refuted.

          Further (and has been pointed out on this thread and others), human feeding trials are both unethical and totally impractical. However, there is an excellent long term “trial” going on right now. Americans have been eating GMO food for over 20 years. Other than a few minor allergies on a product that was pulled from production less than a year later, there has not been one case of anything that could be attributed to GMO crops.

          Finally.. show me a scientific study that corn is safe to eat. Show me a scientific study that rice is safe to eat. Show me a scientific study that wheat is safe to eat.

          There aren’t any.

          There have been hundreds of studies one human analog creatures where we can control the feed and none have had any significant effects.

          Sorry.

          If you don’t want to eat it, then buy organic only. That is a marketing scheme for people who are concerned about what they eat. There’s your label. But fear mongering in spite of evidence is not a cause for labeling or banning or anything else.

          • Guest

            OK, there was a claim that there have been no, or little testing. You showed that there has been some testing. But your other points don’t follow from that. No one’s asking for human feeding trials, although since you claim we’ve been eating it and it’s harmless, then why would it be unethical? Regarding the 20 year trial fo Americans eating GMOs – it’s a ruse. We’ve been eating extracts like corn syrup, corn starch, soybean oil, etc – these are carbohydrates and fats extracted from GMOs that no longer contain the proteins which might be possible source of allergies or toxins. Most GMOs have been used to feed animals or for biofuel. It’s only recently that GMOs have been avilable to eat as whole food: sweet corn in the US and eggplant in Bangledesh. So no, we haven’t eaten “trillions of GMO meals” as some GMO advocates say.

            “show me a scientific study that corn is safe to eat.”
            The point here is that corn with Cry toxins in it isn’t just “corn” as we’ve known it for ages. It expresses a protein that we haven’t been eating except in miniscule amounts, so we don’t really know what it would mean to be eating this in every bite of sweet corn, or any other crop that the industry decides to add these proteins to. There are many questions besides these.

            So, you’ve provided a handful of feeding studies and you’ve disproved the claim that none are done. So, what is the relevance of any of these feeding studies to human consumption? There are perhaps 2 or 3 that might be relevant. But they’re on different GMOs, and they end up showing that we probably should be looking closer at the health effects of adding these foods to our regular diet.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Describe, in detail, the effects of Cry. Cite detailed studies of the effects of the toxin on humans.

            What drives me more insane than almost anything is that this is not new. This has been discussed ad naseum IN THIS THREAD. There are dozens of references, in this thread that talk about the toxicity (or lack thereof) of Bt proteins. If you have a reference that’s not mentioned, then feel free to post it.

            I don’t know why I should be expected to post the same material for every person that doesn’t bother to do their own reading. And I don’t mean reading anti-GMO websites either. You have to think critically about everything. You have to be skeptical… and not just about what you want to be true, but about both sides. I’ve read hundreds of papers on this. The vast majority (99%+) say that there are no effects due to GMO-based food. Have you read Seralini?

            And don’t forget that whatever effects you post about BT proteins in regards to GMO crops is also attributable to Organic crops which allow Bt crystals to be sprayed on them.

            And you are right on the fact that we haven’t eaten “trillions of GMO meals” although I’ve never seen anyone say it that way. Which is good of you to acknowledge. Maybe this will help. Read it, Read the references, then understand them. I’ll be happy to help with questions.

            Every single thing in GM crops has to have this same work done. Everyone freaks out about glychophosphate. I don’t know why. It literally cannot harm animals. It simply can’t. It affects a biochemical path that doesn’t exist in animals.

          • Guest

            I have searched the literature. There are only a few feeding studies on bt in crops done on rats. A few are from the industry and show no health effects (actually, they show some but determine that they’re insignificant, even though the numbers say they are). There’s a couple from independent researchers which indicate kidney and liver problems. In fact, the data from one Monsanto study was ordered made public and upon examination indicated kidney and liver toxicities. When you demand that someone show you a study showing toxicity, you’re just pointing up the fact that there aren’t that many studies.

            “I don’t know why I should be expected to post the same material for every person that doesn’t bother to do their own reading.”

            I’m not asking you to post anything. I’m telling you I’ve already looked at these studies and they don’t assure safety, and in fact they suggest that we should be cautious in incorporating bt food into our diet.

            Yes, I have seen one notable GMO proponent say we’ve eaten trillions of GMO meals. I won’t mention his name because it would be easy enough for you to find out if you want to. But the point is, we haven’t been eating bt toxins from GMO foods, we’ve only been eating processed foods which contain ingredients which are stuff from GMOs – NOT the stuff that might be a problem. This is critical to understand: it’s the proteins in GMOs that may prove to be a source of health problems more than the carbs or fats in them. We remove those proteins when we create the food ingredients that we say are GMO – ingredients like corn starch for example. It may come from a GMO, but it doesn’t pose the same problem as eating GMO corn on the cob.

            “Everyone freaks out about glychophosphate. I don’t know why. It
            literally cannot harm animals. It simply can’t. It affects a biochemical
            path that doesn’t exist in animals.”

            Roundup isn’t just glyphosate. And it’s bad for amphibians (mutagenic I believe) and it does end up in the water to an extent. But anyway, that’s passe. We now have engineered resistance to more toxic pesticides because so many weeds have become resistant to Roundup.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Point me to a peer-reviewed independent study that assures us that corn is non-toxic.

            Point me to a peer-reviewed independent study that wheat is non-toxic.

            Anyway, I don’t think you’ve been reading peer-reviewed research. Just a brief search turned up these articles.

            http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/agbio2010/Readings%202010/are_bt_crops_safe_nat_bio_2003.pdf

            http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0046121

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357180800332X

            ” No toxicity of activated Cry4Aa and Cry11A was detected for a mammalian cell line. On the other hand, Cyt2Ba showed some toxicity to these cells, and in the presence of Cry4Aa and Cry11A, the toxicity was increased but was not statistically significant. Bti toxins are not expected to be harmful to humans, even if swallowed, because the toxin crystals need a pH of 10 or higher to be solubilized, while the human stomach has a pH of 1–3. Moreover, it is not plausible that the proteolytic pattern could activate a Bti toxin or that the protein would have a functional structure in a solution with such a low pH.”

            If you wish to tell me that all those people are employees of Monsanto then be prepared to provide evidence.

          • Mlema

            I’ve already explained why we don’t necessarily need the same kind of toxicity studies on conventionally bred corn or wheat that we’ve been eating forever. There are problems that show up from these crops, and sometimes they’re totally unexpected – like when we cross closely related plants that don’t express any toxins and we end up with a plant that has a new toxin we didn’t expect at all. We should be evaluating ALL plants for new proteins and allergens -regardless of whether they’re GMO or not. But transgenic plants are especially problematic when they cross distantly related species and/or use methods known to disrupt the genome in ways that traditional breeding doesn’t. You can read about this in the NAS publication on GMOs.

            Regarding the 3 links: the first one explains that we don’t test GM foods as they are eaten, but instead test the new protein as it’s expressed by microbes like recombinant e.coli. (last paragraph 1004-first on 1005) There have been differences seen between the tested protein and the one that’s actually in the plant. The rest of the paper seems to address environmental concerns. The second article shows me that there are conditions and combinations under which these Cry toxins need to be tested further – but is encouraging regarding one type of Cry toxin in one situation. The last one showed that Cry toxins negatively impact zebrafish and their embryos in a number of different ways depending on a number of variable.

            To me these links perfectly illustrate my point: safety testing should be standardized and required (as recommended by the AMA) – and – environmentalists have valid concerns.

          • Mlema

            Here’s the NAS publication:
            http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092094

            I’ll have to leave the last word to you as I’m unavailable to spend more time here. Thanks for the conversation and I will read your reply

  • SmilodonsRetreat

    http://www.biofortified.org/2014/08/gm-watch-finds-genera-useful/

    In which the developers of GENERA show that cherry-picking is wrong and give examples.

    In other words, everyone wants independent studies.. until those studies disagree with what they want.

  • SmilodonsRetreat

    http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-studies/

    Another one that describes the metastudies, the amount of “corporate interference” and why actual independent science supports the company (hint, it’s because the company doesn’t send out seed which causes problems, they check that first). Conspiracy theorists has better be able to provide EVIDENCE of any claims.

    • Mlema

      Hi Smilodon – I saw through my e-mail that you had replied to a comment I made. But, after searching through the below comments several times I don’t see our conversation anymore. So please forgive me for answering here. Hopefully you’ll remember the conversation. It was about you saying that farmers get along with Monsanto just fine (I’m paraphrasing from memory of course) And i said they don’t love Monsanto all that much and that they have to be careful what they say in many cases (does this ring a bell I hope?) Anyway, this is from Monsanto’s site:
      “This number is emphasized even more if you add the fact that only 145
      lawsuits have been filed in 15 years of patent enforcement, and almost
      700 matters have been settled out-of-court”

      Those hundreds of matters that are settled out of court don’t always go Monsanto’s way. But no matter which way they go, if Monsanto pays it’s often on condition of not talking about it. Monsanto has helped farmers. But it’s been a strained relationship. To get a good idea of how many farmers feel, you’ve got to talk to more than just the ones who are happy to get online and promote their products. Please understand, I’m not against that and I respect EVERY farmer – no matter what their viewpoints. But it’s just not true that all farmers have feelings of gratitude towards Monsanto. Many of them feel that Monsanto has undermined farming communities by turning neighboring farmers against each other. Also, some of Monsanto’s wins have been public relations losses because a lot of people just don’t like the idea of a seed company suing farmers and bankrupting them – even if they’ve gone against the strict requirements they’ve signed on to.

      • Mlema

        Further – IP contracts aren’t the same as patented seeds (which have been around for decades). Hybrid seeds don’t typically provide good quality seeds for saving to replant, and farmers buy new seeds because they get good quality that way (saved corn seed is pretty useless). The patents prevent anyone from specifically using those seeds to breed new plants – and from duplicating the hybrid by attempting to breed it themselves after analyzing it (which farmers wouldn’t have the ability to do anyway). But seed patents never kept farmers and co-ops from cleaning and saving soybean or cotton seeds for re-planting as IP contracts do. Now of course, those crops have moved in that direction too. But a lot of farming communities resent this power grab. Monsanto actually has private investigators patrolling and spying on people to see if they can catch someone violating a contract. You can read about some of this if you’re interested, but most of the stories are anecdotal of course. (as is my relating of it here – just trying to describe the difference between these technology contracts and older seed patents. Lots of people say “seeds have always been patented” – but it’s not the same thing.

        • Mlema

          also – companies can require that their pesticides are used with their seed