GMO conspiracy theories

[George B]

George, try your best to feed the soil, but I suppose you could feed the plant if all else fails. I definitely agree with the article about calcium and/or uneven watering being the cause of blossom end rot.
However, there is still a chance that the plat might be struggling absorbing calcium for another reason. Nematodes are a soil organism which eat roots, so I suppose there's a chance of one problem causing another....

In my case, just evening out the watering did the trick, not too dry, not too wet. I didn't actualy have a calcium shortage. That situation can also cause plenty of losses from cracking, especially if you are vine-ripening close to perfectly ripe. I have come to understand that it might be best to pick a little early if a heavy rain is expected and many 'maters are ripe enough to burst. Get a soil test before the season starts, use their recommendations if possible, and be sure to ask them to test for aluminum, barium and strontium

BTW, speak to some local growers with the same soil type you have and find out what varieties they are having luck with, but don't be afraid to strike out on your own with some tests of new varieties. "Tomato grower's supply" has hundreds of varieties to choose from.

Thanks very much for your advice !!!!!

[Stupid]

It's true, tomatoes planted in the same soil year after year, will see a decline in fruit production.....each year after.
I am a "container" tomato gardener...in that my drip system (watering) is a bunch of tubes feeding into each container.

Each year, I "cycle" the soil....and replenish each container with compost and organic matter in the fall.
I have containers of soil in the fall and winter.....watering the plant-less pots as to sustain the soil healthy, biologically.
I water the plant-less pots, to grow healthy soil.
Biologically rich soil is the key to assist healthy young transplants....in the spring planting.

[Stupid]

A new graphic is spreading around the net, mostly facebook.
Most people already bent against GMO's readily believe the title without investigating it's claim....even though it a silly assertion....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/monsanto.asp

[Stupid]

One of the best sites I found that debunked most of Jeffrey Smith's claims about GMOs are found here:
http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-...etic-roulette/

Upon further investigation of that site and it's creators.....to be fair, it may well seem to reinforce the anti-GMO activists' assertions that:
' positive research on the benefits of GMO's are affiliated with the GMO companies themselves '

One of the major problem with that site's authors and contributors ARE affiliated with such companies.
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/...sy#cite_note-1
In fact, if you check ILSI's anual report, and it's included member's list.....nearly every major food/feed suppliers, chemical industry leaders, pharma, and GMO providers
..... are supporting members.
http://www.ilsi.org/Features/ILSI_AR2011_Final.pdf (page 16)

But of course that does not necessarily mean the info provided is false. There is a lot of information contained on academicsreview.org...and some serious fact-checking is needed.

And... one would normally expect ANY company to fund research to ensure their product is safe. Doing-so does not automatically prove such studies are biased and that the researchers are providing false information.
In fact, if the testing was to be carried out by a university, it is the students who assist the professors in the testing labs. The results are then known to the students as well. If the results are purposefully skewed, or blatantly false (lies)....the students would be aware of this too.

It is only the hard-core conspiracy believer (or the distrusting/naive public) would think that either:
-- the students are being taught to lie,
-- that the students (usually PHD candidates) are too dumb to notice,
-- or that the students are being taught incorrect information to carry with them in their future careers.

Even if any of the above three were true, surely some other professional (or rival university), would have a field-day exposing their faulty results.

[Stupid]

Unrelated to the above.....Monsanto's rein of lawsuit terror.......
http://www.saynotogmos.org/heartbreak/hbhl256.wmv
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/en...0,626461.story

I'm not refering to GMO's safeness, I'm pointing to their patent enforcement.

[Stupid]

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/corn/

very good blog post (I generally don't quote blogs, but this one stood out)....
http://hyperobjects.wordpress.com/20...vandana-shiva/

To then bring attention to a dangerous, and I would be as bold to say outright abuse of GMOs, comes from when developers engineer a food crop to be resistant to herbicides which have demonstrated a wide range of damaging ecological effects. Unfortunately though, for we the consumers, food production giants have not yet found it financially compelling to adopt a model of GMO research and development that is open-source, social, and ecologically minded. This is no surprise with traditional forms of capitalism; although it isn’t enough to complain about the evils of capitalism and turn a blind eye to attempts of GMO technology to address nutritional deficits in certain populations, such as the case of bio-fortified rice, which is developed largely as an attempt to increase nutrient intake of poorer people in rural China, without increasing their food costs. What is disturbing though is the undulating waves of anti-GMO dissenters who use such distasteful terminology like “eco-crusaders” where the Naturalist Gestapo, through misunderstanding fundamental biology and the history of farming taint the reputation of transgenic technology and create a misguided media frenzy over the real health concerns stemming from corporate practices of mass food production.

So now, I’m really tired of hearing from the organics only crowd about the unnaturalness of transgenic gene splicing and the contrived dangers of transposons. These people really should have paid closer attention in genetics class. There are multiple instances of lateral gene transfer occurring outside laboratory contexts, and not just in microorganisms; lateral gene transfer has given rise to a great deal of biological complexity we observe today and occurs not just across genus either, from plant to plant, but also across Kingdoms, from fungi to aphids

(sorry for the long quote, but get the gist of the link, I thought it necessary)

[cmrosko]

Allot of valid reports, facts, data etc. reported here on often overlooked effects of the most widely used herbicide glyphosate (Roundup)

Glyphosate (Roundup) toxicity - impacts on the environment and non-target species

EFFECT ON SOIL
Glyphosate when it comes into contact with soil is adsorbed onto soil particles, binding to soil in a similar way to phosphates, remaining residual for many years . Adsorption of glyphosate is higher in soils containing clay and organic matter than in sandy loam soils. (4)
Glyphosate bound to soil particles can remain active and may be released from soil and taken up by plants. The US-EPA has also stated that many endangered plants may be at risk from glyphosate use in conservation areas.
Glyphosate in soil takes 140 days to break down to half it’s toxicity and will continue to be taken up by plants from the soil for 2 years and longer.
“Some soil invertebrates including springtails, mites and isopods are also adversely affected by glyphosate. Of nine herbicides tested for their toxicity to soil microorganisms, glyphosate was found to be the second most toxic to a range of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and yeasts” (
Glyphosate is hazardous to earthworms, Tests using New Zealand’s most common earthworm showed that glyphosate, in amounts as low as 1/20 of standard application rates, reduced its growth and slowed its development.
Roundup inhibits mycorrhizal fungi. Canadian studies have shown that as little as 1 part per million of Roundup can reduce the growth or colonization of mycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhizal fungi are essential for tree health, collecting nutrients and water to feed their host plant and protecting tree roots from harmful fungi and root rot diseases.
Glyphosate reduces nitrogen fixation. Amounts as small as 2 parts per million have had significant effects, and effects have been measured up to 120 days after spraying.
Ground spraying of Glyphosate can drift up to 400m in still conditions (i.e. no wind)...

See more here; http://permaculture.com.au/online/articles/glyphosate-toxicity-impacts-on-the-environment-and-non-target-species

[Stupid]

I shot my grass with Roundup to eliminate weeds and grass. Next year everything I newly planted >>> (wildflowers) grew well.
One season.
Plus the weeds came back, too.....in addition.....within one season.

So in my garden, Roundup killed the plants, not the seeds.
...so there must not be as much residual toxin as some say.

[MikeC]

Me too - I have a gravel drive, and of course dirt collects under the gravel, and seeds blow into it - I spray it with "generic" glyphosate (which is only 1/3rd the cost of Roundup!) 2-4 times a year.

[Stupid]

There are little arguments about the effects of Glyphosate. One argument is ......
how long does it effectively linger as a toxin, and in what application scenarios...
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/public...glyphosate.pdf

[Stupid]

If anti-GMO or "anti- bug deterrent" proponents think there has been too few studies on it's benefits/faults....then they have not investigated enough.....then....
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...e+harmful+corn

[Stupid]

I don't think we here can debate "in simple words" the effectiveness and/or the ineffectiveness of degradable or lingering toxic substances on applications of farm produce.

...though I tried. I just don't feel qualified enough.

[Unregistered]

Jay, it's so nice to see some intelligent remarks concerning GMO's. I am constantly amazed at how many people really do think that Monsanto is the evil devil trying to take over our lives by making GMO crops. As a research scientist familiar with the techniques used to make genetic modifications, and aware of the tests the plants are subjected to, I do not have the anti GMO phobia that seems to run rampant in our society.

[Stupid]

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1135
....a pretty good article about unwarrented fears.

[Stupid]

http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/index.html

[farbot]

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/14-8

alas, whatever you think about the safety or supposed hazard of GMO...it appears they are not producing higher yields overall, so why would we even run the possible risks (however slight they may be), if they don't deliver what they promise...

Genetic Engineering Has Failed to Significantly Boost US Crop Yields Despite Biotech Industry Claims, New Report Finds

Increases Over the Last Decade Due to Traditional Breeding and Conventional Agricultural Improvements

WASHINGTON - April 14 - For years, the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.
That promise has proven to be empty, according to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.


.....

http://www.ucsusa.org/ Site of the UCS

[Mick]

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/14-8

alas, whatever you think about the safety or supposed hazard of GMO...it appears they are not producing higher yields overall, so why would we even run the possible risks (however slight they may be), if they don't deliver what they promise...



http://www.ucsusa.org/ Site of the UCS

I'd like to see some comparative studies there, but one quick point: increased yields are not the only benefit of GE crops. They also (in some cases) help the environment by decreasing the use of pesticides, and there are other operational advantages.



I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that all these farmers have simply been tricked into using GE crops by Monsanto. Most of them made informed decisions about what to grow.

[Stupid]

Unfortunately, a typical Google search of nearly any words that also include the word "GMO", results in page after page of anti-gmo arguments.
Why ? ...people are passionate about the unknown, and tend to go with a well constructed story with fringe facts, rather than the boring basic facts. Life becomes more exciting this way....even if the topic is convincing them of some personal harm, or fear.

An internet search using the word "ghost", will also result in page after page of "ghost stories".

There are many sites attempting to "promote fears". For many, it's thrilling reading. People are open to new ideas.
There are far fewer sites attempting to "disprove the sites that promote fears". These sites often attempt to break a wall that was formerly erected by fear and new ideas....or ideas that were never seriously researched and scientifically validated in the first place. It's a game of catch-up....in this case, GMO ketchup. (catsup)

http://www.chow.com/food-news/55353/...p-and-ketchup/

[Unregistered]

Read these:
Holzschuh A., Steffan-Dewenter I. Tscharntke T. Agricultural landscapes with organic crops support higher pollinator diversity. Oikos 2008117, 3, 354-361.
Rundlöf M,.Nilsson H,.Smith H. Interacting effects of farming practice and landscape context on bumble bees Biological Conservation 2008, 141, 417-26.

There are actually way more if you'd care to look, and this is only one aspect of this subject. Once again, you have excellent data on chemtrails, but this is pitiful.

[Mick]

Read these:
Holzschuh A., Steffan-Dewenter I. Tscharntke T. Agricultural landscapes with organic crops support higher pollinator diversity. Oikos 2008117, 3, 354-361.
Rundlöf M,.Nilsson H,.Smith H. Interacting effects of farming practice and landscape context on bumble bees Biological Conservation 2008, 141, 417-26.

There are actually way more if you'd care to look, and this is only one aspect of this subject. Once again, you have excellent data on chemtrails, but this is pitiful.

One can always find individual studies to support or refute particular theories in areas such as this. Perhaps rather than harping on how pitiful the thread is, you could actually add something other than "read this". Would you this a reasonable response would be: "no, read THIS"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...rd-818585.html

[Oxymoron]

One can always find individual studies to support or refute particular theories in areas such as this. Perhaps rather than harping on how pitiful the thread is, you could actually add something other than "read this". Would you this a reasonable response would be: "no, read THIS"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...rd-818585.html

Perhaps this may enhance the topic a little, G.M seeds/'foods' (although technically they are not foods) are open to all types of manipulation which people do not want:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/m...ot-food-cs.php

Content from external source:

There has been a concerted national effort by citizens to have the US government label GMOs. Opposing it are government intent not only to keep them unlabeled in the US but efforts at the international level by the US government to remove all labeling of GMOs through Codex. The problem is that Codex applies to food, and GMOs don't qualify.

Content from external source:

Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. In this manner, in reality they produced a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption. “Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.”15 Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population.” The moral and ethical issues of feeding it to humans in Third World poor countries without their knowing it countries he left out of his remarks.

http://www.wwoofinternational.org/news/?p=250

Content from external source:

In New Zealand recently there has been much debate on the Government’s intention to replace standing Food and Hygiene regulations with the very wordy and complex “Food Bill 160-2 (2010)”. Amongst the raging debates is an important discussion over the control of seeds as the bill defines them as “foods” and how this new bill will limit the common New Zealanders ability to save and exchange seeds with each other.

A fabulous website has been setup to help the common person understand this bill and what it means in laymens terms. They summarise the seed as food issue in the bill as this: “It makes it illegal to distribute “food” without authorisation, and it defines “food” in such a way that it includes nutrients, seeds, natural medicines, essential minerals and drinks (including water).” the only answer I can come up with is it’s all about control. Control the seed, control the food, control the people, and make money into the bargain.

Content from external source:

a paraphrase of something Henry Kissenger wrote, that goes like this “He who controls the food supply controls the people“. If you fund the seed bank do you not then “own” it and the seed that comes with it? Around the world people are reluctant to let anyone (especially an organisation halfway across the globe) “own” their seed source and, potentially, having the power to decide who gets to have the seed and when.

[Oxymoron]

Oh what a surprise Monsanto already know this!

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...56327337.shtml

Content from external source:

from the you-can't-eat-without-eating-Monsanto dept
Dark Helmet points us to the news of an Associated Press investigation into how Monsanto basically cornered the market in seeds by using gene patents and coercive licensing agreements that basically make it impossible to grow certain products without having to first reach a restrictive agreement with Monsanto. And they did this all in about a dozen years. Gene patents are already troubling enough, and reading this report on how Monsanto used its gene patents to basically wipe out all competition is quite telling in exactly how patents can be used to significantly harm a market.

I have an idea... don't buy GM foods... wow I'm amazing to think of that!

[Oxymoron]

Nothing wrong here?

http://www.dailypaul.com/94811/monsa...he-rothschilds

Content from external source:

"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws," said Mayer Amschel Rothschild less than two centuries ago.

In confirmation of his words and the effectiveness of his intention, his family now control the finances of the world and routinely ruin nation after nation and race after race at their whim as a matter of course

Content from external source:

Monsanto has also declared its plans - if we 'permit' them - to dominate the food supply of the world. 1 It produces the lethal 'Round-Up' herbicide, which eliminates all plants other than those also produced by Monsanto and its co-conspirators Dow and Du Pont, which are genetically modified to withstand their 'Round-Up'. This will enable them to sell the only viable food-seeds to the rest of the world at whatever price they care to name - or to withhold them and therefore cause mass starvation. (Their choice of the name 'Round-up' is interesting as it is the term used for the activity of gathering 'cattle' together before driving them to their slaughter).

The Rockefeller family, who control Monsanto and are at the moment servants of the Rothschild family, are also sponsoring in the Spitzbergen Islands a seed-bank of all existing natural plants so that, when they have eliminated the rest of us unwanted humans by starvation, they will be able to re-populate the planet with natural plants.

[MikeC]

http://www.wwoofinternational.org/news/?p=250

[EX]In New Zealand recently there has been much debate on the Government’s intention to replace standing Food and Hygiene regulations with the very wordy and complex “Food Bill 160-2 (2010)”. Amongst the raging debates is an important discussion over the control of seeds as the bill defines them as “foods” and how this new bill will limit the common New Zealanders ability to save and exchange seeds with each other.

A fabulous website has been setup to help the common person understand this bill and what it means in laymens terms. They summarise the seed as food issue in the bill as this: “It makes it illegal to distribute “food” without authorisation, and it defines “food” in such a way that it includes nutrients, seeds, natural medicines, essential minerals and drinks (including water).” the only answer I can come up with is it’s all about control. Control the seed, control the food, control the people, and make money into the bargain.

That is arant nonsense and either ignorant or an outright lie.

the Bill is available on the NZ govt website - it does not require "autorisation" - for some foods it requires control plans - ie food safety procedures. these plans have to be registereed - ie recorded - but they do not actually have to be authorised.

the requirements for registrations aer:

Content from external source:

Criteria for registration of food control plan
The registration authority must register a food control plan if satisfied that—
(a) the food control plan complies with the applicable requirements of this Act; and
(b) if implemented appropriately, the food control plan will enable safe and suitable food to be traded; and
(c) the business, or its operator, is resident in New Zealand (within the meaning of section YD 1 or YD 2 of the Income Tax Act 2007); and
(d) the operator of the food business is able to comply with the requirements of this Act

And that is it - if you meet those 4 criteria registration is a given.

As it says:

Content from external source:


Subpart 4—Primary duty of persons who trade in food

18 Primary duty of persons who trade in food
A person who trades in food must ensure that it is safe and suitable.

It also only applies to food for sale - you are free to give away anyhing you like.

It is this sort if scaremongering misrepresentation that worries the general public who do not have the time to do detailed research of their own - IMO people shoudl be lieable for this sort of crap!!

[Mick]

Perhaps this may enhance the topic a little, G.M seeds/'foods' (although technically they are not foods) are open to all types of manipulation which people do not want:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/m...ot-food-cs.php

Content from external source:

There has been a concerted national effort by citizens to have the US government label GMOs. Opposing it are government intent not only to keep them unlabeled in the US but efforts at the international level by the US government to remove all labeling of GMOs through Codex. The problem is that Codex applies to food, and GMOs don't qualify.

Content from external source:

Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. In this manner, in reality they produced a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption. “Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.”15 Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population.” The moral and ethical issues of feeding it to humans in Third World poor countries without their knowing it countries he left out of his remarks.

http://www.wwoofinternational.org/news/?p=250

Here's the original story, from 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/sep/09/gm.food

Content from external source:

Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive corn. Waiving fields of maize may one day save the world from overpopulation.The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San Diego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers have discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm.
By isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies, and by putting them in corn plants, the company has created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives.
'We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies,' said Epicyte president Mitch Hein.
'We have also created corn plants that make antibodies against the herpes virus, so we should be able to make a plant-based jelly that not only prevents pregnancy but also blocks the spread of sexual disease.'
Contraceptive corn is based on research on the rare condition, immune infertility, in which a woman makes antibodies that attack sperm.
'Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,' said Hein. 'They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.'
Normally, biologists use bacteria to grow human proteins. However, Epicyte decided to use corn because plants have cellular structures that are much more like those of humans, making them easier to manipulate.
The company, which says it will not grow the maize near other crops, says it plans to launch clinical trials of the corn in a few months.

It's a bit misleading. Contraceptives are something that people want. Of course they don't want them in their corn, but that's not what's going on. The corn is just used to create the contraceptive gel. It's used as a "bioreactor". It's a technique used for all kinds of benificial medications:

http://www.uniroma2.it/didattica/ogm...otec_2002..pdf

[Pete Tar]

Here's the original story, from 2001...


It's a bit misleading. Contraceptives are something that people want. Of course they don't want them in their corn, but that's not what's going on. The corn is just used to create the contraceptive gel. It's used as a "bioreactor". It's a technique used for all kinds of benificial medications:
..

Thanks for reading deeper - that was quite a disturbing representation of the facts.

[Oxymoron]

Yes, good detective work Mick in locating that it is for manufacturing a spermicidal gel, i.e. 'biopharmaceuticals', the article did not make this clear.

Apologies for the length of this post but I trid keeping it short. Unfortunately there are much wider issues here, such as what happens when these 'biopharmaceuticals' get mixed into the foodchain, either accidentally or 'accidentally on purpose' or even just plain out deliberately:

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article...-Latin-America

Content from external source:

17.06.2010
A Little Mishap In Nebraska

There have been mistakes with these crops already. In November 2002, at an agricultural cooperative in Aurora, Nebraska, 500,000 bushels of soy were contaminated with biopharmaceutical corn. One of the coop members harvested an experimental batch of corn for ProdiGene the year before and then proceeded to plant a crop of soy for human consumption in the same field.

During a routine inspection, federal officials from the Department of Agriculture found the corn stalks for ProdiGene growing among the soy plants. By the time they made the discovery, soy from that field was already being stored mixed with the soy of other coop members. Fortunately, the authorities were able to segregate the contaminated grain just before it reached the supermarket aisles

Or when they contaminate neighbouring fields etc

Content from external source:

laboratory-altered corn, patented by the seed giants Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, is already ripening on 13 hectares in Sinaloa and Sonora states, and the first harvest is expected later this month. An analysis is expected in July. Farm groups and environmentalists filed an appeal with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in February 2010, arguing that Mexican officials have been unwilling or unable to prevent the illegal spread of genetically modified crops in their country and that it is too soon to permit biotech plantations before the consequences of genetic contamination – possibly irreversible – are fully understood. They are concerned that Mexican seed dealers have smuggled in thousands of sacks of genetically modified corn with impunity. The commission can refer cases to the Inter-American Human Rights Court if a government does not comply with its recommendations.

Bearing in mind Monsanto own these genes... once they spread into other areas... What do you think Monsanto will do?


http://www.alternet.org/story/18154/...eakfast_cereal

Content from external source:

"What will happen if the pollen of a transgenic plant containing some kind of drug fertilizes a nearby edible crop?" argues the Erosion, Technology and Concentration Action Group (ETC) in a report published in 2000.

The report continues to ask: "How will the soil microorganisms and insects which benefit agriculture be affected by crops genetically designed to produce industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals? What will happen if animals eat the biopharmaceutical crops? Will the biopharmaceutical proteins be altered during the various stages of growth, harvest and storage? Will they cause allergic reactions?

Wikileaks: And why is the U.S Government blackmailing the E.U on behalf of Monsanto?
http://naturalsociety.com/us-start-t...nto-gmo-crops/

Content from external source:

The United States is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) crops with military-style trade wars, according to information obtained and released by the organization WikiLeaks. Nations like France, which have moved to ban one of Monsanto’s GM corn varieties, were requested to be ‘penalized’ by the United States for opposing Monsanto and genetically modified foods. The information reveals just how deep Monsanto’s roots have penetrated key positions within the United States government, with the cables reporting that many U.S. diplomats work directly for Monsanto

Oh, I see, the last bit explains it

Ok, so what about safety... does this sound like something you want to eat... I don't, give me organic.

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-france-...er-threat.html

Content from external source:

NK603 is a type of corn, or maize, that has been engineered to make it resistant to Roundup and is used by farmers to maximise yields. The authors of the study said it was the first experiment in GM food that followed rats throughout their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days. Premature death and tumours were far higher among rats, especially females, that had been fed the GM corn or given ordinary corn supplemented by water to which low concentrations of Roundup had been added

Premature death and tumours were far higher among rats, especially females, that had been fed the GM corn or given ordinary corn supplemented by water to which low concentrations of Roundup had been added, they said. At the 14-month stage of experiment, no animals in the control groups showed any signs of cancer, but among females in the "treated" groups, tumours affected between 10 and 30 percent of the rodents, the study said. "By the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80 percent of female animals had developed tumours in all treated groups, with up to three tumours per animal, whereas only 30 percent of controls were affected," it said.

But other scientists said the study was too underpowered, had questionable gaps in the data and raised doubts more about Roundup than the NK603 corn itself. It entailed 200 rats divided into 10 experimental groups, of which only 20 were "controls" fed ordinary corn and plain water.

Why is this the FIRST test to moniter the rats throughout their lives? This test report is dated Sept 2012.

And with all the 'pressure' applied what are the motives of the scientists who dispute the validity of these tests?

And further what about the 'owning of the seedbanks' and the patenting of the genes? This is all worrying stuff IMO

[Jay Reynolds]

Ok, so what about safety... does this sound like something you want to eat... I don't, give me organic.

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-france-...er-threat.html

Content from external source:

NK603 is a type of corn, or maize, that has been engineered to make it resistant to Roundup and is used by farmers to maximise yields. The authors of the study said it was the first experiment in GM food that followed rats throughout their lifespan, as opposed to just 90 days. Premature death and tumours were far higher among rats, especially females, that had been fed the GM corn or given ordinary corn supplemented by water to which low concentrations of Roundup had been added

Premature death and tumours were far higher among rats, especially females, that had been fed the GM corn or given ordinary corn supplemented by water to which low concentrations of Roundup had been added, they said. At the 14-month stage of experiment, no animals in the control groups showed any signs of cancer, but among females in the "treated" groups, tumours affected between 10 and 30 percent of the rodents, the study said. "By the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80 percent of female animals had developed tumours in all treated groups, with up to three tumours per animal, whereas only 30 percent of controls were affected," it said.

But other scientists said the study was too underpowered, had questionable gaps in the data and raised doubts more about Roundup than the NK603 corn itself. It entailed 200 rats divided into 10 experimental groups, of which only 20 were "controls" fed ordinary corn and plain water.

Why is this the FIRST test to moniter the rats throughout their lives? This test report is dated Sept 2012.

And with all the 'pressure' applied what are the motives of the scientists who dispute the validity of these tests?

And further what about the 'owning of the seedbanks' and the patenting of the genes? This is all worrying stuff IMO

Ah, I read about this Monday. Lots of problems with the study.
The particular strain of rats used are genetically pre-disposed to cancer and don't live long.


The anti-GMO folks always claim that studies showing safety of GMO crops are biased, but this anti-GMO one appears to be pot-kettle-black designed as a publicity stunt wit all the embargoes and non-disclosure agreements.

http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-...rutiny-1.11566

[more at above link-JR]
Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny
Food-safety bodies slam feeding study that claims increased cancer incidence in rats.
Last week, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin both issued initial assessments slamming the paper, bluntly asserting that its conclusions are not supported by the data presented. “The design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate,” says the EFSA in a press release, adding that the paper is “of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment”.

There is a high probability that the findings in relation to the tumour incidence are due to chance, given the low number of animals and the spontaneous occurrence of tumours in Sprague-Dawley rats,” concludes the EFSA report. In response to the EFSA’s assessment, the European Federation of Biotechnology — an umbrella body in Barcelona, Spain, that represents biotech researchers, institutes and companies across Europe — called for the study to be retracted, describing its publication as a “dangerous case of failure of the peer-review system”.

Yet Séralini has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work. Only a select group of journalists (not including Nature) was given access to the embargoed paper, and each writer was required to sign a highly unusual confidentiality agreement, seen by Nature, which prevented them from discussing the paper with other scientists before the embargo expired.

Journalists often receive embargoed journal articles, and standard practice is to solicit independent assessments before the paper is published. The agreement for this paper, however, did not allow any disclosure and threatened a severe penalty for non-compliance: “A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study.”

In an exceptional move, the ethics committee of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) last week decried the public-relations offensive as inappropriate for a high-quality and objective scientific debate, and reminded researchers working on controversial topics of the need to report results responsibly to the public.

Some thoughts:
People have owned seedbanks as long as there have been seeds.
The Dutch held a monopoly on nutmegs for 200 years.
Natural ruber was strictly a product of Brazil until and englishman smuggled it out and sent it to asia.
You can own your own seedbank if you like.

The Red Delicious apple has over 40 patented 'sports', sub varieties with different qualities from the original.
It is a CLONE, which cannot be produced by seeds.
Stark Nurseries, still in busness today, bought the rights to Red Delicious in 1892.
Some people call the variety "Red Disgusting".
Sometimes this Disgusting fruit has hideous MUTATIONS called 'sports'.
Some of them turned out to be very good apples though, and were patented.

The first Fuji apple wasn't a CLONE, but every Fuji apple you've ever eaten was a CLONE from the first.
The Fuji apple came from the CLONED Red Disgusting apple crossed with another apple.

The Gala apple didn't come from the PATENTED CLONED Red Disgusting apple.
It came from New Zealand, but it came from a Yellow Disgusting apple crossed with another apple.
Every Gala apple you've ever eaten was a CLONE from the first, some have likely been MUTANTS as well.

Pineapples make no seeds. All pineapples, even orgainic ones, are CLONES. All bananas are also CLONES.
Have you ever eaten a CLONE? Most people have and enjoy doing so, even if these FRANKENFOODS often are grown in
TEST TUBES. Sounds icky, tastes sweet.

[Oxymoron]

Ah, I read about this Monday. Lots of problems with the study.
The particular strain of rats used are genetically pre-disposed to cancer and don't live long.


The anti-GMO folks always claim that studies showing safety of GMO crops are biased, but this anti-GMO one appears to be pot-kettle-black designed as a publicity stunt wit all the embargoes and non-disclosure agreements.

http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-...rutiny-1.11566

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

Content from external source:

The Sprague Dawley rat is an outbred multipurpose breed of albino rat used extensively in medical research.^{[10][11][12][13]} Its main advantage is its calmness and ease of handling.^[14] This breed of rat was first produced by the Sprague Dawley farms (later to become the Sprague Dawley Animal Company) in Madison, Wisconsin in 1925.

Below is a link for the purchase of Sprague Dawley rats and a description of their research application/uses. Clearly the fact that they are prone to cancers, make them extremely suitable for research into the causes of cancers, including nutritional inputs.

In short this is exactly why they are used. One then has to question why a specific G.M test is then attacked on the basis that they are unsuitable?

The valuable information i.e. 'usable results' are contained in the discrepancy of rats developing cancers during the experiment as opposed to the numbers which would typically develop cancers normally i.e. in the 'control group', (those not subject to the experiment).
From the previously quoted GM modified diet experiment, there is clearly a significant increase in these cancer rates when compared to the control group.

Whilst this is readily apparent in the short time frame of the experiment, such results in humans would likely take decades or even generations to show up, assuming that it was even attempted to correlate the increase to G.M, which I doubt would be the case.

Cancers are becoming greatly more common in the populace anyway, (for whatever mysterious reason that may be), said fact could easily obscure any additional increase. Also what or who would constitute 'the control group', i.e. those not subjected to GM contaminants. (As discussed, there is great opposition to labeling of G.M contaminated foods).


http://www.criver.com/en-us/prodserv...dawleyrat.aspx

Content from external source:

RESEARCH APPLICATION
general multipurpose model, safety and efficacy testing, aging, nutrition, diet-induced obesity, oncology

I offer a few examples of the very many case studies out there for your perusal. In the following studies it can clearly be seen these are 'typical numbers' of Sprague Dawley rats used in many respected and approved cancer, obesity and diabetes trials, to which these species are particularly applicable for study, (which is why they were bred). Personally I think it is a ridiculously low trial number but this does appear to be the 'accepted norm' by scientists so who am I to argue on that point.


http://content.onlinejacc.org/articl...icleid=1126122

Content from external source:

Noninvasive assessment with Doppler echocardiography and contribution of the nitric oxide pathway FREE

Ian I Joffe, MD; Kerry E Travers, BA; Cynthia L Perreault-Micale, PhD; Thomas Hampton, PhD; Sarah E Katz, BA; James P Morgan, MD, PhD, FACC; Pamela S Douglas, MD, FACC



Sixty-two Sprague-Dawley female rats weighing 140 to 189 g were assigned to two groups. Rats were anesthetized with ketamine hydrochloride (85 mg/kg body weight) intramuscularly (IM). Control rats (n = 14) received intravenous (IV) saline through the tail vein (placebo). The diabetic group (n = 48) received an IV injection through the tail vein of freshly prepared pancreatic-cell toxin STZ 50 mg/kg. This dose produces a nonketotic model of diabetes mellitus (11- 12).

and
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194

Content from external source:

Tumor Incidence in Normal Sprague-Dawley Female Rats

• R. K. Davis*,
• G. T. Stevenson†, and
• K. A. Busch*

A tumor incidence of 57 per cent was observed in 150 female rats allowed to live out their life-span as normal, control animals on standard laboratory chow. One hundred similar rats on a special fatrich diet developed an 80 per cent tumor incidence.

and


http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768

Content from external source:

A spontaneous tumor incidence of 45% was noted in 360 Sprague-Dawley rats (179 males and 181 females) and a 26% incidence was seen in 254 Swiss mice (101 males and 153 females) used as untreated control animals in an 18-month series of carcinogenesis experiments.

and


http://www.pnas.org/content/76/11/5910.full.pdf

Content from external source:

Spontaneous tumors in Sprague-Dawley and Long-Evans rats and in
their F1 hybrids: Carcinogenic effect of total-body x-irradiation
(oncogenic viruses/spontaneous rat leukemia)
LUDWIK GROSS AND YOLANDE DREYFUSS
Cancer Research Unit, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Bronx, New York 10468

It is well known and remarked upon that:

Content from external source:

ABSTRACT Rats frequently develop various tumors, many
of them malignant

The document proceeds:

Content from external source:

Animals. From a nucleus of random-bred Sprague-Dawley
rats received in June 1960 from the Animal Production Unit,
National Institutes of Health, a colony of rats has been raised
in our laboratory by brother-to-sister mating...

Irradiation of Partially Shielded Rats. In a small series of
experiments, Sprague-Dawley rats, about 3-4.5 weeks old,
whose tails and both hind extremities were shielded by a lead
tube inserted as far as possible up to the inguinal area, received
one or two consecutive irradiations of 250 rads each, or four
consecutive irradiations of 150 rads each, at weekly intervals.
RESULTS
Incidence and Forms of Spontaneous Tumors and Leukemia
in our Colonies of Sprague-Dawley and Long-Evans
Rats. Table 1 shows that, among 133 Sprague-Dawley females,
we have observed 29 tumors and 5 leukemias. Among 141
males, only 7 developed tumors and 2 developed leukemia. The
incidence of tumors was higher in the Long-Evans rats; among
181 females 51 developed tumors and 5 developed leukemia;
among 179 males, only 18 developed tumors but 9 developed
leukemia.

There are very many more instances of such experiments catalogued, which can easily be found by searching ' sprague dawley rats cancer' or some such similar search.


I have to ask why these myriad of 'other' experiments have not received 'similar attacks/debunking or rebuttals'? It makes me wonder.


Personally, I will not knowingly be ingesting G.M foods whilst I have a choice as I simply i) do not wish to take an unnecessary risk, ii) I do not agree with the principle that seeds can be monopolised/weaponised.


All I can do is express my views and hope that enough people share my views and are prepared to lobby against these Frankenstein crops at every level, or at the very least that 'foods' containing them are mandatorily forced to disclose it prominently on the packaging. At least then, we have some degree of choice.

It takes all sorts of people to make up the world, and those differences are what makes it so interesting IMO.

[Oxymoron]

Some thoughts:
People have owned seedbanks as long as there have been seeds.
The Dutch held a monopoly on nutmegs for 200 years.
Natural ruber was strictly a product of Brazil until and englishman smuggled it out and sent it to asia.
You can own your own seedbank if you like.

The Red Delicious apple has over 40 patented 'sports', sub varieties with different qualities from the original.
It is a CLONE, which cannot be produced by seeds.
Stark Nurseries, still in busness today, bought the rights to Red Delicious in 1892.
Some people call the variety "Red Disgusting".
Sometimes this Disgusting fruit has hideous MUTATIONS called 'sports'.
Some of them turned out to be very good apples though, and were patented.

The first Fuji apple wasn't a CLONE, but every Fuji apple you've ever eaten was a CLONE from the first.
The Fuji apple came from the CLONED Red Disgusting apple crossed with another apple.

The Gala apple didn't come from the PATENTED CLONED Red Disgusting apple.
It came from New Zealand, but it came from a Yellow Disgusting apple crossed with another apple.
Every Gala apple you've ever eaten was a CLONE from the first, some have likely been MUTANTS as well.

Pineapples make no seeds. All pineapples, even orgainic ones, are CLONES. All bananas are also CLONES.
Have you ever eaten a CLONE? Most people have and enjoy doing so, even if these FRANKENFOODS often are grown in
TEST TUBES. Sounds icky, tastes sweet.

I have no problem with grafting trees to produce different/better fruit. This is not the same thing at all IMO. In fact it does not make sense to me that they should even be categorised as 'cloned'. E.g are tubers or bulbs classified as 'clone'? Perhaps they are, but it seems pretty natural to me much like interbreeding different cattle to get a new breed with a specific trait. Been happening for millenia. Now 'Dolly', thats cloning and look what happened there.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2...ned_apples.htm

Content from external source:

Apples. They're big! And mmm ... Are they good! But do you know where they come from? Trees? Seeds? Close, but actually, all of the apples we eat, whether we buy them at the store or pick them off a tree, are clones! For 2,000 years, growers have attached the root of one tree to the shoot of the desired fruit to clone it through a process called grafting. Making a genetic copy of the preferred fruit is the only way to get reliable apple quality.

[Mick]

A part of the problem with these rat studies is images like:



The average reader just sees GMO = Cancer, when really most of the rats got tumors because they were bred to get tumors.

[Oxymoron]

A part of the problem with these rat studies is images like:



The average reader just sees GMO = Cancer, when really most of the rats got tumors because they were bred to get tumors.

It is horrific, but if you don't mind me saying... you seem to be missing the point. These rats are specifically bred to be used in cancer research because they are prone to cancer. If they were given a normal diet, a certain percentage would naturally develop cancers as they are predisposed to do. However, when they are fed on GM 'food', the 'cancer rate' significantly increases.

These rats are routinely used in many many cancer studies, that is why they were bred and used since 1925. If the GM study is to be 'attacked' for using these rats... then why not all the other cancer studies? It makes no sense.

As I said, what shows up in these rats in a few months could take decades or generations to show up in humans fed on GM 'foods'.

[Mick]

It is horrific, but if you don't mind me saying... you seem to be missing the point. These rats are specifically bred to be used in cancer research because they are prone to cancer. If they were given a normal diet, a certain percentage would naturally develop cancers as they are predisposed to do. However, when they are fed on GM 'food', the 'cancer rate' significantly increases.

These rats are routinely used in many many cancer studies, that is why they were bred and used since 1925. If the GM study is to be 'attacked' for using these rats... then why not all the other cancer studies? It makes no sense.

As I said, what shows up in these rats in a few months could take decades or generations to show up in humans fed on GM 'foods'.

I get the point, I was making a different point about the images. The perception being that ONLY the GM fed rats got these tumors.

But to your point, the criicisms of the study were not just based on the type of rat used, more to do with the number of rats used - only 10 per group, where 50 would be indicated, and for numerous other problems - there's a good round-up here:

http://www.aei.org/article/energy-an...-of-criticism/

[Oxymoron]

I get the point, I was making a different point about the images. The perception being that ONLY the GM fed rats got these tumors.

But to your point, the criicisms of the study were not just based on the type of rat used, more to do with the number of rats used - only 10 per group, where 50 would be indicated, and for numerous other problems - there's a good round-up here:

http://www.aei.org/article/energy-an...-of-criticism/

As for the images, was there not a breakdown on how many rats would normally be expected to develop tumours and the difference in the GM R group?... I expect there was.

As for the article, I find it pretty sad to be honest.

Content from external source:


“When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk,” the letter concluded. The polemic concluded that both the peer review process and the public debate are “rigged in favour of [corporations and] backed up by systematic suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest.”

I know its pretty much what you would expect from me but I have to say, the above statement appears to be a truism and is evidenced in many many studies. Scientists who 'tow the line' get funding and contracts whilst those who disagree are ostricised, sacked, excluded, ridiculed etc. It really is increasingly difficult to find 'unpoliticised', 'corporatised' science.

The criticism's of the trial do appear to me to be quite suspicious, especially when taken in context of the massive political pressure exerted by U.S. Government officials in the employ of Monsanto.

What I want to know is... why has it taken so long to do this test.... over a decade late IMO and certainly they put the cart before the horse.

I really can't see the problem anyway... let a number of independent scientists re run the experiment with a larger group and then peer review each other.... how much can it cost? To be fair we are potentially talking about the long term health of billions of people here and not only that (as if that wasn't bad enough), we are looking at genetic impact on our future generations.

[Mick]

I know its pretty much what you would expect from me but I have to say, the above statement appears to be a truism and is evidenced in many many studies. Scientists who 'tow the line' get funding and contracts whilst those who disagree are ostricised, sacked, excluded, ridiculed etc. It really is increasingly difficult to find 'unpoliticised', 'corporatised' science.
.

That's a common view of science, and of course there is some truth to it, in that corporations do fund research, and they try to suppress or at least belittle research that is not favorable to their goals.

However it's a rather unfair representation of science as a whole. Academic research gets funding from a variety of sources, and it occurs in a variety of countries. The truth of any matter is going to come out eventually.

And bias cuts both ways. Séralini has his own influences.

Yes, let's do more tests. But let's not give this particular test undue significance.

[MikeC]

It is horrific, but if you don't mind me saying... you seem to be missing the point. These rats are specifically bred to be used in cancer research because they are prone to cancer. If they were given a normal diet, a certain percentage would naturally develop cancers as they are predisposed to do. However, when they are fed on GM 'food', the 'cancer rate' significantly increases.

no they didn't - the study was rubbish and has been roundly condemned as a poor quality experiment that cannot be considered as valid:

Content from external source:

The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.

EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate.

It is not attacked for using eth rats - it is condemned for being a lousy experiment.

[Oxymoron]

no they didn't - the study was rubbish and has been roundly condemned as a poor quality experiment that cannot be considered as valid:

Content from external source:

The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.

EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate.

It is not attacked for using eth rats - it is condemned for being a lousy experiment.

I see you read it... not.

Content from external source:

Main findings of Initial Review

The task force, whose members were drawn from the Authority’s GMO, pesticide and scientific assessment units, has outlined a list of issues about the paper that would need to be resolved before it could be viewed as well-conducted and properly-reported study.

• The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.

Bon appetite.... yum yum

[Oxymoron]

Content from external source:

Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King’s College, London, and an expert on GM foods, said: ‘It shows an extraordinary number of tumours developing earlier and more aggressively – particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.’

The research was carried out by Caen University in France, and has been peer reviewed by independent scientists to guarantee the experiments were properly conducted and the results are valid.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2Eywxz5Ym

Content from external source:

The researchers found:

• Between 50 to 80 per cent of female rats developed large tumours by the beginning of the 24th month, with up to three tumours per animal. Only 30 per cent of the control rats developed tumours
• Up to 70 per cent of females died prematurely compared with only 20 per cent in the control group
• Tumours in rats of both sexes fed the GM corn were two to three times larger than in the control group
  
• The large tumours appeared in females after seven months, compared to 14 months in the control group. The team said the tumours were ‘deleterious to health due to a very large size’, making it difficult for the rats to breathe and causing digestive problems.

Significantly, the majority of tumours were detectable only after 18 months – meaning they could be discovered only in long-term feeding trials.

Content from external source:

And on the same page.... Superweeds created by GM farming are so rampant in the U.S they can only be killed with flamethrowers and a chemical used in the Vietnam war... Agent Orange

YIPPEEEEE lead me to the trough

[Mick]

I see you read it... not.

Content from external source:

Main findings of Initial Review

The task force, whose members were drawn from the Authority’s GMO, pesticide and scientific assessment units, has outlined a list of issues about the paper that would need to be resolved before it could be viewed as well-conducted and properly-reported study.

• The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.

Bon appetite.... yum yum

They didn't JUST attack it for using particular rats.

That was one problem among many, the sum of which is "a lousy experiment"

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/n...c_id=RSS&emt=1

Content from external source:




The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.
EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. To enable the fullest understanding of the study the Authority has invited authors Séralini et al to share key additional information.

Such shortcomings mean that EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors’ conclusions as scientifically sound. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested.

...
Main findings of Initial Review
The task force, whose members were drawn from the Authority’s GMO, pesticide and scientific assessment units, has outlined a list of issues about the paper that would need to be resolved before it could be viewed as well-conducted and properly-reported study.

• The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.
• The authors split the rats into 10 treatment sets but established only one control group. This meant there was no appropriate control for four sets – some 40% of the animals - all of whom were fed GM maize treated or not treated with a herbicide containing glyphosate.
• The paper has not complied with internationally-recognised standard methods – known as protocols - for setting up and carrying out experiments. Many of these procedures are developed by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).
• For a study of this type, the relevant OECD guideline specifies the need for a minimum of 50 rats per treatment group. Séralini et al used only 10 rodents per treatment set. The low number of animals used is insufficient to distinguish between the incidence of tumours due to chance rather than specific treatment effects.
• The authors have not stated any objectives, which are the questions a study is designed to answer. Research objectives define crucial factors such as the study design, correct sample size, and the statistical methods used to analyse data - all of which have a direct impact on the reliability of findings.
• No information is given about the composition of the food given to the rats, how it was stored or details of harmful substances – such as mycotoxins – that it might have contained.
• It is not possible to properly evaluate the exposure of the rats to the herbicide as intake is not clearly reported. The authors report only the application rate of the herbicide used to spray the plants and the concentration added to the rats’ drinking water but report no details about the volume of the feed or water consumed.
• The paper does not employ a commonly-used statistical analysis method nor does it state if the method was specified prior to starting the study. The validity of the method used is queried and there are questions over the reporting of tumour incidence. Important data, such as a summary of drop outs and an estimation of unbiased treatment effects have not been included in the paper.
• Many endpoints – what is measured in the study – have not been reported in the paper. This includes relevant information on lesions, other than tumours, that were observed. EFSA has called on the authors to report all endpoints in the name of openness and transparency.

[Oxymoron]

Oh what a web we weave when we practice to deceive

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19585341

Content from external source:

A US biotechnology company is set to introduce a controversial new genetically modified corn to help farmers fight resistant weeds.

Dow Agrosciences says its new GM product is based on a chemical that was once a component of the Vietnam war defoliant, Agent Orange.
It is needed they say because so called "superweeds" are now affecting up to 15 million acres of American crops.