Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Oct 24, 2012 in Biology, Culture, Education, Genetics, GMO, Science, Society | 105 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.

  • 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.

        • hyperzombie

          Also remember that Copper sulphate is the only fungicide/herbicide that bioaccumulates, used almost exclusively by the Organic industry.

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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