Monsanto/GMO Protests in West Palm Beach and Miami on Saturday

Categories: Fire Ant

fire_ant_logo.jpg

Commie pinko libs that we are (except for El Jefe, our editor in chief -- he's a company man), we feel duty-bound to tell one and all there's a big nationwide protest against Monsanto on Saturday, with marches slated for West Palm Beach and Miami. We feel that duty if only because our many tree-hugger friends (we love trees too!) are nagging us to do so. So, in the spirit of "give-the-people-what-they-want-and-good-and-hard," here's the scoop.

See also:
- Food & Water Watch Releases Report on the Corporate Giant Monsanto

National protest organizers say they're calling for "the permanent boycott" of GMOs and "other harmful agro-chemicals." Miami organizers share that view, slamming "poisonous Frankenfoods." West Palm Beach is more restrained, "calling into question long-term health risks" of GM foods and "demanding" their labeling "so that consumers can make informed decisions."

MAM14.jpg

Broward County protesters, who had a separate anti-Monsanto march last year (these things are becoming annual events), will caravan down to join the Miami action, "Due to red tape with City of Hollywood," according to their Facebook post.

The marches look like they'll be fun as well as, hopefully, informative.

Miami peeps were told:

Wear black/red -or- dress in your craziest modified Vegetable or make your own costume!! Dress as a bee or butterfly, Think creatively! Bring instruments and your coolest Signs!

*STAY TUNED FOR Party Bus from Hollywood AND AFTER PARTY WITH MUSIC Mi Vida Cafe, Vegan Cuisine

West Palm Beach includes an after-march "sustainable mingle" at O'Shea's Irish Pub, with music from Future Prezidents and others.

If there appears to be a certain skepticism on our part, that's because there is. We're down with the First Amendment and all for civic engagement. And we hold no brief for Monsanto (the folks who brought you napalm and Agent Orange), multinational biotech in general, or actually existing capitalism. But we're not sold on claims that GMO foods are -- in and of themselves -- harmful to human health. (And we're not talking "not proved" as argued by climate-change denialists, where the scientific community is overwhelmingly in agreement and a so-called "independent-minded citizenry" challenges them. In the matter of GMOs, the science has, by and large, given GMOs a clean bill of health.)

Here's where we come down: Monsanto bad, GMO labeling good, GMOs tbd. March on.

Details on Saturday's March[es] Against Monsanto can be found here, here and here.

Fire Ant -- an invasive species, tinged bright red, with an annoying, sometimes-fatal sting -- covers South Florida news and culture. Got feedback or a tip? Contact Fire.Ant@BrowardPalmBeach.com.




My Voice Nation Help
53 comments
fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

Still waiting for an answer to this:

GE crops and foods have been in general circulation worldwide for almost 20 years. Where is the evidence of a resulting plague of illnesses/marked uptick in morbidity and mortality directly attributable to the consumption of GE crops and foods?

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

Anonymous:
GE crops and foods have been in general circulation worldwide for almost 20 years. Where is the evidence of a resulting plague of illnesses, the marked uptick in morbidity and mortality? Except for autism, of course.

Anonymous
Anonymous

List continued 7


#531 not in English

#532 not a feeding trial

#533 not in English 

#534 not currently consumed

#535 not a feeding trial, former Monsanto employee Alison Van Eenennaam  http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM225072.pdf.

#536 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#537 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Monsanto study

#538 same exact study as #536

#539 performance, Monsanto study, FASS journal

#540 not a GE feeding trial, "possible interaction in vivo of Cry proteins with the animal bowel which could induce changes in the physiological status of the intestine."

#541 not a GE feeding trial, "Systemic immune responses were attained with doses of soluble Cry1Ac ranging from 0.1 to 100 microg" 

#542 "In GM-fed mice of all ages considered, the number of perichromatin granules is higher and the nuclear pore density lower. Moreover, we found enlargements in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum in GM-fed mice Sertoli cells."

#543 not a feeding trial

#544 not a feeding trial

#545 not a feeding trial

#546 same exact study as #544

#547 not a feeding trial

#548 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial

#549 unapproved variety, used chickens

#550 ? unapproved variety

#551 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial

#552  "Alterations in immune responses were detected"

#553 ? can't find study

#554 "short-term feeding of Bt MON810 maize to weaned pigs resulted in increased feed consumption, less efficient conversion of feed to gain and a decrease in goblet cells/μm of duodenal villus. There was also a tendency for an increase in kidney weight"

#555 unapproved variety

#556 not used for human feed, FASS journal http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=51 which is involved with Monsanto http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp 

#557 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=51 which is involved with Monsanto http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp

#558 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#559 not a feeding trial

#560 not in English

#561 ? can't find study

#562 unapproved variety

#563 used Bt176  

#564 used Bt176  

#565 study on glyphosate

#567 feed not in form humans consume, Monsanto, FASS journal 

#568 feed not in form humans consume

#569 not a feeding trial

#570 unapproved variety

#571 unapproved variety, used chickens

#572 unapproved variety

#573 unapproved variety

#574 unapproved variety

#575 not a feeding trial

#576 not a feeding trial

#577 not a feeding trial

#578 not human food, used chickens, FASS journal 

#579 not human food, FASS journal 

#580 short term

#581 unapproved variety

#582 unapproved variety

#583 not a feeding trial

 #584 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial

 #585  Pioneer study

#586 "a minor increase in the genus Holdemania. As the role of Holdemania in the intestine is still under investigation"

#587 suggests adverse impact was observed

#588 differences were observed

#589 not a feeding trial 

#590 not a feeding trial 

#591 not a feeding trial 

 #592 unapproved variety

#593 same exact study as #420

#594 used fish "The data suggest that Cry1Ab protein or other antigens in Bt-maize have local immunogenic effects in salmon DI." 

#595 short term, Pioneer/DuPont study

#596 review

#597 not a feeding trial

#599 not a feeding trial

#600 not a feeding trial 

*

There really isn't much here in terms of independent animal feeding studies using mammals that look at GE foods currently consumed by humans and use quality health parameters.  The long term evidence that is here suggests problems and definitely not, " the science has, by and large, given GMOs a clean bill of health."   Also see this : http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/

Anonymous
Anonymous

List continued 5


#430 not a feeding trial

#431 used quails, FASS journal 

#432 used quails, FASS journal 

#433 unapproved variety

#434 not specific to GMO

#435 not specific to GMO

#436 not specific to GMO

#437 EFSA review of mostly Monsanto data

#438 "with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product."

#439 not a feeding trial

#440 feed not in form humans consume

#441 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, "one liver and one kidney sample from the pigs (different animals) were positive for a 278-bp fragment of the transgenic cp4 epsps (denoted F3)." 

#442 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not 

#443 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not 

#444 not a feeding trial

#445 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#446 not a feeding trial

#447 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#448 short term feeding trial

#449 used chickens, Monsanto study

#450 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#451 performance, Monsanto study, FASS journal  

#452 unapproved variety

#453 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Pioneer/Dow study, FASS journal  

#454 unapproved variety

#455 feed not in form humans consume

#456 feed not in form humans consume

#457 feed not in form humans consume

#458 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#459 feed not in form humans consume, Monsanto study

#460 used fish

#461 not a feeding trial

#462 not specific to GMO

#463 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal 

#464 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health 

#465  feed not in form humans consume, FASS journal 

#466 performance, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#467 feed not in form humans consume, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#468 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Pioneer study, FASS journal 

#469 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Pioneer/Dow study, FASS journal 

#470 only seems to look at carcass characteristics and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Pioneer/Dow study, FASS journal 

#471 same exact study as #469

#472 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#473 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#474 not a feeding trial

#475 only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little relevance to human health, ruminants not comparable for human digestion

#476 only seems to look at meat quality and other parameters with little relevance to human health 

#477 performance, used chickens

#478 unapproved variety

#479 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety 

#480 unapproved variety

#481 not a feeding trial

#482 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#483 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#484 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#485 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#486 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#487 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#488 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#489 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal

#490 not a feeding trial

#491 same exact study as #484

#492 same exact study as #482

#493 same exact study as #483

#494 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#495 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal

#496 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#497 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#498 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#499 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#500 same exact study as #489

#501 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#502 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#503 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#504 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#505 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#506 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#507 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#508 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#509 same exact study as #486

#510 same exact study as #487

#511 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#512 unapproved variety

#513 short term

#514 not specific to GMO

#515 not a feeding trial

#516 not a feeding trial

#517 unapproved variety

#518 unapproved variety

#519 used Bt176, used chickens

#520 used Bt176, used chickens

#521 used Bt176, used chickens

#522 used Bt176

#523 same exact study as #522

#524 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, "in treated group, fragments of 35S and CP4 epsps soybean genes were found in several samples."

#525 "A significant increase in lactic dehydrogenase, mainly concerning the lactic dehydrogenase-1 isoenzyme was found in heart , skeletal muscle and kidney of treated kids, thus suggesting a change in the local production of the enzyme."

#526 only seems to look at digestion

#527 "a significant increase of lactic dehydrogenase, mainly concerning the LDH1 isoenzyme was found in particular in kidney and heart but not in the muscle, thus suggesting a potential alteration in the local production of the enzyme."

#528 same exact study as #487

#529 not a feeding trial

#530 not in English

Anonymous
Anonymous

List continued 4


#331 used hens

#332 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#333 not a feeding trial

#334 used chickens, FASS journal 

#335 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#336 unapproved variety

#337 not a feeding trial

#338 not a feeding trial

#339 not a long term feeding trial

#340 not a long term feeding trial

#341 review, Monsanto study

#342 not a long term feeding trial

#343 unapproved variety 

#344 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not

#345 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, "Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel"

#346 unapproved variety 

#347 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial, Bayer study

#348 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#349 not a feeding trial

#350 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#351 unapproved variety

#352 not a long term feeding trial

#353 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not

#354 not a GE food

#355 unapproved variety, Monsanto study 

#356 unapproved variety, Monsanto study,  FASS journal 

#357 unapproved variety, Monsanto study 

#358 performance, FASS journal

#359 performance, FASS journal

#360 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, FASS journal 

#361 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not

#362 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal 

#363 review

#364 same exact study as #362

#365 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not 

#366 same exact study as #360

#367 not a feeding trial

#368 not a long term feeding trial

#369 same exact study as #120

#370 not specific to GMO

#371 only seems to look at body weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#372 performance

#373 performance, used chickens, FASS journal 

#374  same exact study as #371

#375 performance, used chickens,  FASS journal

#376 unapproved variety, "the present animal study did not enable us to conclude on the safety of the GM food."

#377 unapproved variety

#378 "significant differences were noted in the activity of Ca(2+) and Na(+)/K(+) ATPase brush border enzymes"

#379 not a feeding trial

#380 unapproved variety

#381 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, FASS journal

#382 used chickens 

#383 used chickens 

#384 not a feeding trial

#385 not a feeding trial

#386 used hens, FASS journal 

#387 unapproved variety, used chickens 

#388 not a feeding trial, Syngenta, Pioneer, Monsanto, Dow study 

#389 used chickens 

#390 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not 

#391 only seems to look at body weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#392 only seems to look at digestibility of crude protein and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#393 same exact study as #390

#394 ? can't find study, FASS journal

#395 ? can't find study

#396 same exact study as #392

#397  same exact study as #391

#398 unapproved variety

#399 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#400 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not 

#401 unapproved variety, Monsanto study

#402 not a feeding trial

#403 not a feeding trial

#404 not a feeding trial

#405 performance, used chickens, FASS journal 

#406 not a long term feeding trial FASS journal

#407 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#408 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#409 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#410 feed not in form humans consume

#411 same exact report as # 410 

#412 performance,  feed not in form humans consume

#413 performance, feed not in form humans consume, FASS journal

#414 feed not in form humans consume, FASS journal 

#415 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#416 used fish, "GM maize seemed to induce significant changes in white blood cell populations which are associated with an immune response."

#417 used fish, "Spleen somatic index was significantly larger in fish groups fed GM FFSBM compared to groups fed nGM FFSBM, which might indicate a possible immune response exerted by the GM soybeans."

#418 Does not meet minimum chronic toxicology/carcinogenicity standards to suggest long term safety.  Used too few subjects(less than 50 per sex, per dose) to suggest safety, only one dose level, not repeated with second species, etc. low impact

#419 Does not meet minimum chronic toxicology/carcinogenicity standards to suggest long term safety.  Used too few subjects(less than 50 per sex, per dose) to suggest safety, only one dose level, is not a lifelong study, not repeated with second species, etc. low impact

#420 used fish

#421 used fish

#422 used fish

#423 not a feeding trial, Syngenta study

#424 not a feeding trial

#425 used chickens, FASS journal 

#426 used hens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#427 used hens, FASS journal 

#428 used hens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#429 same exact study as #426

#430 not a feeding trial

Anonymous
Anonymous

List continued 3


#231 used fish, "the relative size of the spleen showed significant differences between fish fed the genetically modified soy diet compared with fish fed the nGM soybeans."

#232 used fish, "changes in the glucose transport mechanism and intestinal maltase enzyme activity in the gastrointestinal tract warrant further studies."

#233 feed not in form humans consume, it FASS journal

#234 didn't use whole food, Bayer study

#235 didn't use whole food, Bayer study

#236 not a feeding trial

#237 not a long term feeding trial

#238 only feeding was with soy leaves not consumed by humans

#239 not a feeding trial

#240 only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#241 unapproved variety, Ventria study

#242 not in form consumed by humans, FASS journal

#243  only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#244 only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#245 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#246 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#247 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#248 not a feeding trial

#249 not a feeding trial

#250 used hens, FASS journal

#251 performance, used hens, FASS journal 

#252 same exact study as #250

#253 unapproved variety

#254 not a feeding trial

#255 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, Monsanto study

#256  only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, Monsanto study, FASS journal

#257 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, Monsanto study, FASS journal

#258 same exact study as #256

#259 not a feeding trial

#260 only looks at fiber digestibility, etc. with little relevance to human health

#261 unapproved variety, "Taking into account some deviations, it seems reasonable to undertake a long-term feeding study"

#262 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#263 unapproved variety, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#264 unapproved variety, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#265 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#266 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study

#267 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study

#268 not a feeding trial

#269 not a feeding trial

#270 performance, FASS journal

#271 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not

#272 suggested some kidney and liver damage in GE fed group was observed

#273 not a feeding trial

#274 not a feeding trial, "Many transgenic proteins have identical stretches of six or seven amino acids in common with allergenic proteins."

#275 not a feeding trial

#276 not a feeding trial

#277 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not

#278 review

#279 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial

#280 unapproved variety

#281 unapproved variety "The reaction might be related to oxidative stress linked to the altered chemical composition of potato tubers resulting from transgenesis, changed concentrations of some minerals or biologically active substances."

#282 not specific to GMO, FASS journal 

#283 not a feeding trial, comment about unapproved variety, Kuiper worked with ILSI which has affiliation with biotech companies 

#284 ?, FASS journal

#285 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#286 not a feeding trial, DuPont study

#287 not a feeding trial, DuPont study

#288 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#289 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#290 performance, used chickens

#291 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#292 feed not in form humans consume, used fish, Monsanto study

#293 not a feeding trial

#294 not a feeding trial

#295 not a feeding trial

#296 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#297 not a feeding trial

#298 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#299 short term

#300 reference has no title listed

#301 unapproved variety

#302 performance, used chickens, Monsanto study, FASS journal 

#303 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not

#304 same exact study as #303

#305 used Bt176

#306 short term, DuPont study

#307 DuPont study on yeast

#308 only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#309 "a significant lowering of nucleoplasmic and nucleolar splicing factors as well as a perichromatin granule accumulation in GM-fed mice"

#310 "our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence hepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice"

#311 "some modifications occur in hepatocyte nuclei of mice fed on GM soybean."

#312 "GM soybean intake can influence some liver features during ageing"

#313 "a diet containing significant amount of GM food seems to influence the zymogen synthesis and processing." 

#314 short term, DuPont study

#315 same exact study as #75

#316 performance, used chickens

#317 not a feeding trial, The Nature Conservancy received funding from Monsanto, DuPont, etc.

#318 ? can't find study

#319 didn't use whole food, Pioneer study

#320 same exact study as #150

#321 not in English

#322 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not

#323 performance, used chickens, Pioneer study, FASS journal

#324 performance, used chickens, Pioneer study

#325 not a feeding trial

#326 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#327 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#328 performance, used chickens, Pioneer study, FASS journal

#329 performance, used chickens, DuPont study, FASS journal 

#330 used chickens, Pioneer study, FASS journal 

Anonymous
Anonymous

List continued 2


#131 unapproved variety

#132 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#133 same exact study as #132

*#134 funded by Monsanto

#139 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#140 Dow study, humans don't eat cottoneed meal

#141 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#142 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety,

#143 not a feeding trial, unapproved varieties

#144 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, "Plasmid DNA that had previously been exposed to freshly sampled ovine saliva was capable of transforming competent Escherichia coli cells to ampicillin resistance even after 24 h, implying that DNA released from the diet could provide a source of transforming DNA in the oral cavity of sheep."

#145 not a feeding trial

#146 not a feeding trial

#147 EFSA review of primarily Monsanto data

#148 EFSA review of primarily Monsanto data

#149 used Bt176

#150 not a feeding trial, used Bt176

#151 unapproved varieties

#152 used chickens

#153 not a feeding trial

#154 not a feeding trial

#155 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#156 same exact study as #155

#157 unapproved variety, suggests potential negative impact

#158 not a toxicology study

#159 unapproved variety, suggests potential negative impact

#160 performance, Pioneer study, FASS journal

#161 performance, Pioneer/Dow study, FASS journal

#162 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not

#163 same exact study as #161

#164  not a feeding trial, used Bt176

#165  not a feeding trial

#166  suggests potential negative impact

#167  only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#168 only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#169 only seems to look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#170 used Bt176 and quails

#171 review

#172 review

#173 reviewed poultry studies primarily conducted by biotech companies, pig studies which primarily look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health, cattle studies which primarily look at carcass quality measurements, milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health 

#174 same exact study as #170

#175 review

#176 review

#177 review

#178 reviewed poultry studies, pig studies which primarily look at carcass quality measurements and other parameters with little relevance to human health or GE foods not approved, cattle studies which primarily look at carcass quality measurements, milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health or used silage not consumed by humans

#179 not a long term feeding trial

#180 only seems to look at carcass quality measurements, milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health 

#181 feed not in form humans consume, FASS journal

#182 feed not in form humans consume, Syngenta study, FASS journal

#183 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#184 not a feeding trial

#185 fish

#186 fish

#187 didn't use whole food, Monsanto study

#188 review

#189 only seems to look at digestibility, ruminants not comparable for human digestion

#190 used chickens, FASS journal

#191 performance,FASS journal

#192 unapproved variety, not a feeding trial  

#193 not a feeding trial 

#194 not a long term feeding trial

#195  unapproved variety

#196 same exact study as #195

#197  not a feeding trial 

#198 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Monsanto study, FASS journal

#199 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Monsanto study, FASS journal

#200 same exact study as #198

#201 not a feeding trial

#202 not a feeding trial

#203 not a health study

#204 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not. 

#205 not a feeding trial 

#206 only seems to look at body weight gain and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#207 used hens

#208 used chickens

#209 used quails

#210 used chickens, unapproved variety

#211 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#212  same exact study as #211

#213 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#214 short term, Monsanto study

#215 performance, Monsanto study

#216 short term, Monsanto study

#217 review, Monsanto study

#218 same exact study as #215

#219 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#220 short term, Monsanto study

#221 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#222 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#223 short term, Monsanto study 

#224 didn't use whole food, Monsanto study

#225 feed not in form humans consume it,  Monsanto study, FASS journal

#226 unapproved variety

#227 unapproved variety

#228 short term, Pioneer study

#229 unapproved variety, Pioneer study

#230 Monsanto study,

Anonymous
Anonymous

List continued.


#41 and #42 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#43 not a feeding trial, Monsanto study

#44 only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#45 unapproved variety, suggests potential negative impact possibly due to higher glucosinolate in transgenic feed.

#46 only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#47 unapproved variety

#48 not a feeding trial

#49 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#50 Does not meet minimum chronic toxicology/carcinogenicity standards to suggest long term safety.  Used too few subjects(less than 50 per sex, per dose) to suggest safety, is not a lifelong study, only used one sex, not repeated with second species, etc.

#51 Does not meet minimum chronic toxicology/carcinogenicity standards to suggest long term safety.  Used too few subjects(less than 50 per sex, per dose) to suggest safety, is not a lifelong study, not repeated with second species, etc.

#52 same exact study as #50

#53 used broiler chickens, FASS journal

#54 used broiler chickens, FASS journal

#55 used Bt176 and broiler chickens, Novartis study, FASS journal  

#56 perforance, FASS journal

#57 performance, FASS journal 

#58 Monsanto study on glyphosate

#59 unapproved variety

#60 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Pioneer researchers, FASS journal

#61 and #63 are the same study posted twice, used fish

#62 study regarding isoflavones, not specific to GMO 

#63 see #61

#64 unapproved variety

#65 not a long term feeding trial

#66 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#67 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#68 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#69 unapproved variety

#70 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#71 same study as #70 posted twice

#72 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Monsanto study, FASS journal

#73 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health , Monsanto study, FASS journal

#74 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#75 not a feeding trial

#76 "the promoter fragment was detected in the leukocyte, head kidney and muscle only of fish fed the GM SBM diet"

#77 "The cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter fragment (220 bp) of the GM SBM was detected in the muscle of fish receiving both levels of GM SBM diet by nested PCR"

#78 only seem to look at whether the ARM is degraded or not, used chickens

#79 used chickens

#80 ? can't find study

#81 not a feeding trial, "the Bt maize cultivars collectively exhibited lower AMF colonization compared to the parental lines"

#82 review, Studies reviewed used animals not physiologically comparable to humans, used too few subjects to suggest safety or were not life-long experiments.  6 of the 24 studies also used varities of GE feed not currently consumed by humans.  None of the studies reviewed meet the minimum criteria to suggest long term safety.

#83 unapproved variety

#84 unapproved varieties

#85 same exact study as #83

#86 same exact study as # 84

#87 not a feeding trial

#88 reviewed primarily bird feeding trials

#89 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not. 

#90 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, FASS journal

#91 only seems to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not.

#92 performance

#93 only seems to look at feed efficiency and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#94 Bt176

#95 not in English

#96 same exact study as #93

#97 not a feeding trial. "All three viruses were unstable and most of the progeny viruses had lost the inserted sequences between 2 and 4 weeks post-inoculation."

#98 primarily looks at feed efficiency and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#99 not a long term feeding trial

#100 not a feeding trial.

#101 not a feeding trial.

#102 not a feeding trial.

#103 only seems to look at feed efficiency, milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, GE alfalfa hay is not consumed by humans, FASS journal

#104 only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health, GE alfalfa hay is not consumed by humans, FASS journal

#105 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#106 not a long term feeding trial

#107 not a long term feeding trial

#108 not a feeding trial, DuPont study

#109 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Monsanto study, FASS journal

 #110 unapproved variety, only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

 #111 unapproved variety, FASS journal

#112 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, FASS journal

#113 same exact study as #109

#114 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Syngenta

#115 only seems to look at carcass weight and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Syngenta, FASS journal

#116 same exact study as #118

#117 not in English

#118 same exact study as #116

#119 feed not in form humans consume

#120 not a feeding trial

#121 not a long term feeding trial

#122 "these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded."

#123 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, used chickens

#124 not a feeding trial, unapproved varieties

#125 not a feeding trial, DuPont

 #126 not a feeding trial, used Bt176

#127 not a feeding trial

#128 not a feeding trial

#129 not a feeding trial

#130 "An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants."


Anonymous
Anonymous

Next let's look at list of not exactly 600 references.


Over 40 duplicates!  I guess your source didn't even read their own list.

1. #4 the exact same study as #3    

2. #52 same exact study as #50 

3. #63 same exact study as #61

4. #71 same study as #70 posted twice     

5. #85 same exact study as #83

6. #86 same exact study as # 84

7. #96 same exact study as #93

8. #113 same exact study as #109

9. #116 same exact study as #118    

10.#133 same exact study as #132    

11. #156 same exact study as #155     

12. #163 same exact study as #161    

13. #174 same exact study as #170     

14. #196 same exact study as #195    

15. #200 same exact study as #198    

16. #212  same exact study as #211    

17. #218 same exact study as #215    

18. #252 same exact study as #250    

19. #258 same exact study as #256     

20. #304 same exact study as #303    

21. #315 same exact study as #75      

22. #320 same exact study as #150    

23. #364 same exact study as #362     

24. #366 same exact study as #360      

25. #369 same exact study as #120     

26. #374  same exact study as #371       

27. #393 same exact study as #390       

28. #396 same exact study as #392    

29. #397  same exact study as #391    

30. #411 same exact report as # 410     

31. #429 same exact study as #426     

32. #471 same exact study as #469      

33. #491 same exact study as #484    

34. #492 same exact study as #482    

35. #493 same exact study as #483    

36. #500 same exact study as #489    

37. #509 same exact study as #486    

38. #510 same exact study as #487    

39. #523 same exact study as #522    

40. #528 same exact study as #487      

41. #538 same exact study as #536    

42. #546 same exact study as #544    

43. #593 same exact study as #420


Of the individual relevant long term health studies :

6 suggest potentially adverse unintended effects.(309, 310, 312, 313, 542, 587)  

2 suggest no unintended consequences, but do not meet the minimum criteria to suggest long term safety.(418, 419)


So the references in your source actually say the opposite of what your source claims!


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

*

#1 only seems to look at meat quality and other parameters with little relevance to human health, Journal of Animal Science is part of FASS  https://www.asas.org/about-asas which is involved with Monsanto http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp   

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/19/20571053-my-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-1-aalhus-et-al-2003

#2 used Bt176 which is no longer approved for human consumption. 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/19/20586581-my-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-2-aeschbacher-et-al-2005

#3 and #4 are the exact same study referenced twice and chickens aren't good subjects to assess human health risks anyway. 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/19/20588206-my-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-3-aeschbacher-et-al-2002

#5 uses chickens. 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/23/20665607-my-great-big-list-of-studies-entries-5-6-aeschbacher-et-al-2001-aeschbacher-et-al-2001

 #6 uses Bt176. 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/23/20665607-my-great-big-list-of-studies-entries-5-6-aeschbacher-et-al-2001-aeschbacher-et-al-2001

#7, 8, 9, 10 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not. 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/27/20712799-my-great-big-list-of-studies-entries-7-8-9-10-alexander-et-al-2002-2006-2007-2004

 #11 uses unapproved wheat. 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/27/20720560-my-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-11-lvarez-alfageme-et-al-2011

#12 not a GMO feeding trial. 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/28/20725980-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-12-ames-2007

#13 the sheep ate young Bt cotton plants and not cottonseed oil like humans would consume. 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/30/20750345-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-13-anilkumar-et-al-2010

#14 is an unapproved variety and only looks at nutrient content and not an animal feeding trial, FASS journal  

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/10/01/20766143-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-14-apgar-guthrie-et-al-2004

#15 short term, was conducted by Pioneer 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/10/04/20811432-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-15-appenzeller-2008

#16 is not an animal feeding trial and uses unapproved GE rice 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/10/04/20819191-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-16-arencibia-et-al-1998

#17 is a small part of environmental assessment but nothing to do with health. 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/10/06/20840490-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-17-asanuma-2011

#18 and #19 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not and uses hens, Journal of Applied Poultry Research and Poultry Science are part of FASS  http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=51 which is involved with Monsanto http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp  

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/10/07/20862663-great-big-list-of-studies-entries-18-19-ash-et-al-2003-2000

#20 uses an unapproved rice. 

More info http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/10/08/20877220-great-big-list-of-studies-entry-20-atkinson-et-al-2004 

#21 primarily used subjects and parameters that are not relevant to human health

#22 used hens

#23 only seems to look at carcass weight, milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health

#24 not a long term feeding trial

#25 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#26 used fish

#27 used fish, suggests potential negative impact

#28 used Bt176, Journal of Dairy Science is part of FASS http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=51 which is involved with Monsanto http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp   

#29 used Bt176, FASS journal

#30 not a feeding trial

#31 not a long term feeding trial

#32 not a long term feeding trial

#33 not a long term feeding trial

#34 not a feeding trial

#35 not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

#36 and #37 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not, FASS journal

#38 only seem to look at whether the transgene is degraded or not,and performance

#39 not a feeding trial, nothing to do with health

#40 not a feeding trial 

Anonymous
Anonymous

Besides the fake quotes, almost all of the groups on the list your source gives are from biased sources affiliated with biotech companies or don't tell the whole story.


AAAS : president is a biotechnologist who has formerly worked for the biotech companies Evogene as well as Sigma-Aldrich  http://people.equilar.com/bio/nina-fedoroff-sigma-aldrich/salary/650672#.UmC950nD_ui   members include Monsanto executive vice president  http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/robert-fraley-bio.aspx 

Monsanto consultant, etc.  http://www.biology.wustl.edu/faculty/quatrano/profservice.php

Many AAAS members are opposed to the report.  http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods

AAAS position on GM foods could backfire.  http://www.somas.stonybrook.edu/~frisk/Frisk%20papers/Science-2013-Chapman-757.pdf


AMA :  report states, "To better detect potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement." 

Obviously the AMA thinks the U.S. regulations are not good enough with regards to ability to, "detect potential harms of bioengineered foods"

https://www.facebook.com/notes/gmo-free-usa/ama-report-refuted/547947375251745


WHO : the WHO quote used is from a 2002 report and a more recent 2008 joint WHO, FAO, etc. report says, "The safety of GMO foods and feed is controversial due to limited available data, particularly for long-term nutritional consumption and chronic exposure. Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods. The concepts and techniques used for evaluating food and feed safety have been outlined (WHO, 2005b), but the approval process of GM crops is considered inadequate (Spök et al., 2004). Under current practice, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible. Recently, the data for regulatory approval of a new Bt-maize variety (Mon863) was challenged. Significant effects have been found on a number of measured parameters and a call has been made for more research to establish their safety"

 http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Default.aspx/ 


NAS : quote is from a summary of a 2000 report.  Page R5 of the Full Report states, "Michael Phillips was involved with this study until 7/13/99 and is currently employed with the Biotechnology Industry Organization"  Biotechnology Industry Organization members include just about every major biotech company.  http://www.bio.org/articles/bio-members-web-site-links  Page R6 lists the BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES which includes, "ROBERT T. FRALEY, Monsanto Company" and, "THOMAS N. URBAN,

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc."  http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9795&page=R6


ACSH : have received funds from nearly every major biotech company page 16 and 17.  http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/81210328-0357.html?end_page=30

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/809483-acsh-financial-summary


American Society for Cell Biology : Council members include biotech company employee James Sabry, Genentech, Inc.  http://www.ascb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=974&Itemid=410

members include Monsanto consultant    http://www.biology.wustl.edu/faculty/quatrano/profservice.php


American Society for Microbiology : Statement by David Pramer who has had a working relationship with Monsanto employees going back over 50 years, showing a professional conflict of interest.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC277730/


American Society of Plant Biologists : gives out the DENNIS ROBERT HOAGLAND AWARD  Funded by the Monsanto Agricultural Products Company  http://my.aspb.org/?AF_Past_Awardees

members include Monsanto consultant and former Editor-in-Chief, of the American Society of Plant Biologists' journal The Plant Cell   http://www.biology.wustl.edu/faculty/quatrano/profservice.php


International Seed Foundation : affiliate members include biotech companies like BASF and Syngenta http://www.worldseed.org/isf/affiliate.html


Council for Agricultural Science and Technology : stakeholders include Monsanto and other biotech companies.  http://www.cast-science.org/stakeholders/


Crop Science Society of America : corporate members include Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta  https://www.crops.org/membership/corporate/directory


FASS : Committee Members include Gary Hartnell, Monsanto Company http://www.fass.org/sac_biotech.asp


Society for In Vitro Biology : board of directors include Pioneer and Monsanto employees.  http://www.sivb.org/mem_officers.asp


Society of Toxicology : involved with the, "Monsanto Award" given out at their annual meeting every year  http://www.uri.edu/news/releases/html/03-0725.html  


Royal Society of London, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, etc. : This report says, "We recommend that: (i) public health regulatory systems need to be put in place in every country to identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants, as for any other new variety. Such systems must remain fully adaptable to rapid advances in scientific knowledge. The possibility of long-term adverse effects should be kept in view when setting up such systems. This will require coordinated efforts between nations the sharing of experience and the standardization of some types of risk assessments specifically related to human health; (ii) information should be made available to the public concerning how their food supply is regulated and its safety ensured."  No public health regulatory system has been put in place to monitor any potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants.  According to a Health Canada report, "We did not find any post-marketing surveillance system for genetically modified foods in place in any country."  So, it is fraudulent to claim this report suggests GMOs are safe when the recommendations the authors suggest are needed to conclude safety have not been put in effect. 


Union of German Academies of Science and Humanity : 

The names at the bottom of the report here are all biotechnologists with a professional conflict of interest and as far as I can tell no real health background.   http://www.abic2004.org/download/reportongmohazards.pdf 


International Council for Science : quote is from a reference to a 2003 ICSU report(New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries – Societal Dilemmas) written by Gabrielle J. Persley, who is also a board member for ISAAA  http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Gabrielle-Persley/1652662   ISAAA is funded by just about every major biotech company.  http://www.isaaa.org/inbrief/donors/default.asp


If, "the scientific community is overwhelmingly in agreement" as you claim then your source wouldn't need to use fake quotes and quotes from groups affiliated with biotech companies, because your source would have some real and unbiased evidence, but they obviously don't.

Anonymous
Anonymous

Dear Fire Ant, I was wondering why you believe fake quotes and groups affiliated with biotech companies somehow mean that, "the science has, by and large, given GMOs a clean bill of health"?  


To begin with take a look at what most health groups(not groups affiliated with biotech companies like your source uses) have to say.  http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/there-is-no-consensus-on-the-safety-of-gmos/


Next take a look at the over 1500 references(not the fake number 600 your source lists with over 40 duplicates) that suggest problems with GMO and related pesticides.  http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/gmo-science/


Let's look at the fake quotes and affiliations with biotech companies in that little graphic at the top of the page for your source.  I would also be happy to go through every study on that list, but it appears this will take several posts due to the character limit.


I'll start with some of the fake quotes.


The American Dietetic Association(which changed their name to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) put out a press release in response to the false claims made by websites such as GMO Pundit(your source), stating that they do not have an opinion on genetically engineed food. Ethan A. Bergman, the president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics even said, “In addition to being untruthful, the statement attributed to the Academy may give voters a false impression of registered dietitians and the Academy.”  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/academy-of-nutrition-and-dietetics-and-proposition-37-the-facts-173146771.html


European Commission : the quote does not represent the European Commission since the report specifically states, "The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission." the authors include people such as Marc Van Montagu who has an obvious conflict of interest considering he founded two biotech companies, Plant Genetic Systems Inc. and CropDesign and makes millions from GMO's since he invented the Agrobacterium method.  

Of course, your source forgot to mention that the European Commission supports GMO labeling(see : http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/there-is-no-consensus-on-the-safety-of-gmos/ )


Royal Society of Medicine : this quote originates in an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and not from the Royal Society of Medicine.

In the same journal there is a response from medical researcher David Schubert, which points out numerous errors in this article and states, "‘GM crops consumed… with no reported ill effects’ – therefore they are safe. This statement is illogical and the conclusion is not valid. There is no assay and there is no epidemiology. If any GM food product did cause harm it would be impossible to pick up within the constant background of disease, particularly since in the USA, the biggest consumer, there are no labelling requirements."  http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/9/435.2.full

Looks like your source conveniently forgot to mention that!

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant Are you joking?  I already answered this a couple of comments below this one!  I responded to this and numerous fake quotes from biased sources that you posted.  After I showed you that you were posting fake quotes(which you admitted at least once) you just found different biased sources using many of the same fake and biased quotes and asked me to respond to them again!  Try actually reading my comments instead of searching the net for another biased source using fake quotes.


As I said before :


Go back and read the rest of my comments for the biased groups, etc. since I already went through this.


Repeating the same fake quotes from a different biased source is still cheating."


Game over, you lose.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@fire.ant ... the general dumbing-down and IQ retardation of the U$ population -- 40% believe God created Earth and Man less than 10k years ago -- is indicative that something in their diet might be making them STUPID.



Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant  Once again this was answered in response to one of the fake quotes your earlier source made.


Royal Society of Medicine : this quote originates in an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and not from the Royal Society of Medicine.

In the same journal there is a response from medical researcher David Schubert, which points out numerous errors in this article and states, "‘GM crops consumed… with no reported ill effects’ – therefore they are safe. This statement is illogical and the conclusion is not valid. There is no assay and there is no epidemiology. If any GM food product did cause harm it would be impossible to pick up within the constant background of disease, particularly since in the USA, the biggest consumer, there are no labelling requirements."  http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/9/435.2.full

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous 

The four Malatesta studies are not as you describe them.
I also note they involve mice as subjects. Yet you seek to invalidate many of the "600 list" studies by citing their use of animals as subjects. Seems inconsistent.


fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous 

Well, just of one, re the World Health Organization:

Q8. Are GM foods safe?

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods.
-http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

12.10.10

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous @fire.ant

You "answered" but failed to show any
 evidence of a resulting plague of illnesses/marked uptick in morbidity and mortality directly attributable to the consumption of GE foods, per se. You addressed issues related to poor dietary choices and pesticide use.

On the matter of "fake" quotes, I had the good grace to concede that the RSM quote was mis-attributed. Still, the article containing the quote was published under the RSM's imprimatur.

On the matter of "bias": You continue to dismiss out of hand any research produced by scientists who are in even the slightest degree associated with biotech. Their associations do not disprove the science, e.g., Thomas Edison knew a thing or two about electricity. Your position betrays a paranoid and conspiracist mindset, in which any scientist is "biased" who reaches conclusions you disagree with.

The fact remains that the scientific community has, by and large, given GMO's a clean bill of health. Argue all you like about the quality of the science, but many, many highly-qualified scientific bodies and peer-reviewed scientific journal articles support the clean bill of health position.

Your "victory" is rather pyrrhic. The dogs bark; the caravan moves on.




fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous @fire.ant 
Not talking about any particular GE food causing harm. Talking in toto: Where is the evidence of a resulting plague of illnesses, the marked uptick in morbidity and mortality in the last 15 years?

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous Huh?  Mice are acceptable subjects as are most rodents for the first step in toxicology.  Then we move on to non-rodents that are anatomically and physiologically comparable to humans like dogs, pigs, etc.  Then on to human studies.  Many of your references used fish, chickens, etc. which are not used to assess human toxicity. The Malatesta studies are what I said as are the rest I mentioned, but you have provided no evidence of safety(clean bill of health).

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous  I already responded to this, please pay attention.  You wrote, "12.10.10" which I assume is some attempt at trying to convince people that report is from later than 2002, but it is not.  Read the report, it says, ""The principles are at an advanced stage of development and are expected to be adopted in July 2003." and "The Protocol will enter into force 90 days after the 50th country has ratified it, which may be in early 2003"

and "As a first step, the WHO Executive Board will discuss the content of a WHO report covering this subject in January 2003."

Perhaps the real reason for your inaccurate date is because a more recent 2008 report co-sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), The World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Educational and Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) involving 900 participants and 110 countries from all regions of the world states :


"The safety of GMO foods and feed is controversial due to limited available data, particularly for long-term nutritional consumption and chronic exposure. Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods. The concepts and techniques used for evaluating food and feed safety have been outlined (WHO, 2005b), but the approval process of GM crops is considered inadequate (Spök et al., 2004). Under current practice, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible. Recently, the data for regulatory approval of a new Bt-maize variety (Mon863) was challenged. Significant effects have been found on a number of measured parameters and a call has been made for more research to establish their safety"

 http://www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Default.aspx/ 

Anonymous
Anonymous

Part 2 of review by biased genetic engineers with no health background.


In response to claims that all of the studies on their list suggest currently consumed GE foods are safe.
First of all there are several studies on that list that do not suggest safety like the study in #1319 which states, "with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product." so this claim is already debunked.  


#1422 on the list states, "An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants." 


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


The Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods GM food not approved for food or feed anywhere in the world found in food supply. #80

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nbt0508-478?locale=en

EU to monitor for Chinese GM rice 


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


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


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


The use of genetically modified crops may result in negative effects on the natural enemies of crop pests.#358  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0013-8703.2005.00235.x/abstract 


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


It is currently impossible to prevent gene flow between sexually compatible species in the same area.  Pollen and seeds disperse too easily and too far to make containment practical.#854  http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nbt0602-542 


HGT from transgenic plants to microbes could have an environmental impact at a frequency approximately a trillion times lower than the current risk assessment literature estimates the frequency to be#974  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340480


The combined observations of decreased photosynthetic parameters and low nutrient availability in glyphosate-treated plants may explain potential adverse effects of glyphosate in GR soybeans.#1158  http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf904342t 


Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?#1303  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17987446 


Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.#1367  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835 


Etc.

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous I already responded to your second reference so either you didn't actually read my response or you didn't read the report.  In case you missed what I said about that report, here it is again :


European Commission : the quote does not represent the European Commission since the report specifically states, "The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission." the authors include people such as Marc Van Montagu who has an obvious conflict of interest considering he founded two biotech companies, Plant Genetic Systems Inc. and CropDesign and makes millions from GMO's since he invented the Agrobacterium method.  

Of course, your source forgot to mention that the European Commission supports GMO labeling(see : http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/there-is-no-consensus-on-the-safety-of-gmos/ )


As for your first reference, you do that that this was done by biased genetic engineers, right?  Like I said before, if there were real support for your claim you wouldn't need to reference biased sources.  Let's look at the authors and some studies from your reference.


Alessandro Nicolia, "I used the techniques of gene isolation, vector construction, isolation of flanking sequences, genetic recombination (plant and cyanobacteria), site directed mutagenesis, heterologous expression in plant, GUS histochemical staining, Southern Blot, Agrobacterium mediated transformation, particle bombardment transformation, in vitro tissue culture." http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alessandro-nicolia/32/ba7/a14 

So, he uses genetic engineering techniques.


Another author is Fabio Veronesi, affiliated with the European Association of Research on Plant Breeding (Eucarpia) - http://www.festivaldelgiornalismo.com/en/ospiti-2010/veronesi-fabio/#sthash.W8HF6WYE.dpuf

Eucarpia's partners include biotech companies such as Bayer, Pioneer and Syngenta.  http://www.eucarpia.org/organisation/partnerships.html

He is president of the Italian Society of Agricultural Genetics (Società Italiana di Genetica Agraria, SIGA) a pro-GMO group referenced on Monsanto's website.  http://www.monsanto.it/collegamenti/centri_ricerca.asp   

SIGA has also been involved in supporting events sponsored by Monsanto.  http://www.freshplaza.com/article/97632/Italy-Monsanto-Company-sponsoring-6th-International-Brassica-Symposium    

Here is another author working in a lab with Monsanto people.  Daniele Rosellini also a Counsellor with the pro-GMO group SIGA.   http://parrottlab.uga.edu/parrottlab/former.htm

This lab is also completely biased in favor of GMO's. http://parrottlab.uga.edu/parrottlab/GMOResources.htm

In 2009 he was heavily criticized as being biased for an article he wrote, which echos his metaanalysis results, before the metaanalysis was conducted, showing his obvious confirmation bias.   http://scaloni.it/popinga/ogm-tradizione-e-innovazione/


The final author Alberto Manzo is also a member of SIGA.  http://www.geneticagraria.it/soci.asp?a_pag=2&offset=170


So they are all biased and none of them seem to even be qualified to assess health or environmental impact.  This will become obvious when we look at some of the studies on their list.

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous Part 2 response to fake independent list.


51. Unapproved variety

52. Not a feeing trial, unapproved variety

53. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

54. Only seems to look at whether the transgene was degraded or not.

55. Not a feeding trial

56. Unapproved variety

57. Unapproved varieties

58. Only seems to look at whether the transgene was degraded or not, cows not physiologically comparable for human digestion

59. Not a feeding trial

61. Not a feeding trial

62. Does not use 2 species, does not use 3 doses, etc.

63.  Does not use 2 species, does not use 3 doses, etc.

64. Unapproved variety

66. Unapproved variety

67. Unapproved variety

70. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

71. Not a feeding trial

72. Variety no longer approved, didn't use mammal

73. Not a feeding trial

74. Unapproved variety

75. Not a feeding trial

76. Not a feeding trial

77. Not a feeding trial

79. Not a feeding trial

80. Unapproved variety

81. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

82. Not a feeding trial

83. Only seems to look at whether the transgene was degraded or not, cows not physiologically comparable for human digestion

84. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

85. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

86. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

87. Not a feeding trial

88. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

89. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

90. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

91. States, "An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants."  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055

92. Unapproved variety

93. Not a feeding trial

94. Not independent, "Competing interests: Two of the authors, Jian Duan and Joseph Huesing, are employed by Monsanto Company, which produces and markets Bt crops." 

95. Unapproved variety

96. Not a feeding trial

97. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

99. Not a feeding trial

100. Not a feeding trial

101. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

102. Unapproved variety

103. Not a feeding trial

104. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

105. Not a feeding trial

106. Same study as #1 repeated

107. Not a feeding trial

108. Not a feeding trial

109. Not a feeding trial

110. Not a feeding trial

111. The sheep ate young Bt cotton plants and not cottonseed oil like humans would consume.  

112. Only seems to look at milk production and other parameters with little relevance to human health. 

113. Not a feeding trial

114. Not a feeding trial

115. Studies reviewed used animals not physiologically comparable to humans, used too few subjects to suggest safety or were not life-long experiments.  6 of the 24 studies also used varities of GE feed not currently consumed by humans.  None of the studies reviewed meet the minimum criteria to suggest long term safety.

116. "short-term feeding of Bt MON810 maize to weaned pigs resulted in increased feed consumption, less efficient conversion of feed to gain and a decrease in goblet cells/μm of duodenal villus."

117. Not a feeding trial

118. "Alterations in immune responses were detected"

119. Not a feeding trial

120. Not a feeding trial

121. Not a feeding trial

123. Not a feeding trial

124. Not a feeding trial

125. Not a feeding trial

126. Not a feeding trial, negative effects suggested 

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous  So first you post a source with fake  quotes now you post a source with fake independent studies?  This is a joke right?  I provided over 1500 references suggesting problems and the best you could come up with was a list that says 126 independent studies, but has references that say things like this in #94, "Competing interests: Two of the authors, Jian Duan and Joseph Huesing, are employed by Monsanto Company, which produces and markets Bt crops." clearly this is not an independent study. 


If you look through the 126(actually 125) study list you will see many problems, like most of these studies are not relevant(didn't use GE foods people currently consume, weren't feeding trials, didn't use mammals, didn't use real health parameters and instead just looked at carcass weight, etc.). 

1. Short term, does not meet minimum chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards to suggest safety(does not use 2 species, does not use 3 doses, etc.)

2. Not a feeding trial

3. Suggests potential negative impact possibly due to higher glucosinolate in transgenic feed.

4. Not a feeding trial, used unapproved variety

5. Does not meet minimum chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards to suggest long term safety.  Used too few subjects(less than 50 per sex, per dose) to suggest safety, does not use 2 species, etc.

6. Does not meet minimum chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity standards to suggest long term safety.  Used too few subjects(less than 50 per sex, per dose) to suggest safety, does not use 2 species, etc.

7. Did not use a GE food, only used one sex, etc.

9. Only seems to look at digestibility and other parameters with little relevance to human health

11. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

12. Unapproved variety

13. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

14. Does not use mammals as subjects

15. Unapproved varieties

16. Not a feeding trial

17. Only seems to look at digestibility, suggests Cry1Ab was not fully degraded in GI tract

18. Only seems to look at digestibility, cows not physiologically comparable for human digestion

19. Only seems to look at digestibility, cows not physiologically comparable for human digestion

20. Not a health study

23. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

24. Not a feeding trial

27. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

28. Only looks at potential for ARM transfer and no other parameters

29. Not a feeding trial

30. Suggests adverse impact was observed

31. Does not suggest safety

32. Used a variety that is no longer approved, did not use mammal as subject

33. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

35. Did not use mammal as subject

36. Not a feeding trial

37. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

38. Suggests some negative effects were observed

39. Not a feeding trial

40. Not a feeding trial

41. Not a feeding trial, suggests many transgenic proteins have identical stretches of 6-7 amino acids in common with allergenic proteins

42. Does not appear independently conducted due to Kuiper's work with ILSI and their affiliation with biotech companies

43. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

44. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

45. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

46. Not a feeding trial, unapproved variety

47. Suggests some negative effects were observed

48. Study regarding isoflavones, not specific to GMO 

49. Study regarding phytoestrogen content, not specific to GMO 

50. Suggests some negative effects were observed and could be reversed by switching to Non-GMO diet


Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous You are joking right?


Here is a direct quote from the report :


"“Many unanswered questions remain, particularly with regard to the potential long-term impact of GM foods on human health and on the environment. There is a lack of evidence-based research with regard to medium and long-term effects on health and the environment"  


Like I said, there is no, "the science has, by and large, given GMOs a clean bill of health." as you claim, because, "There is a lack of evidence-based research with regard to medium and long-term effects on health and the environment"   You are claiming there is science to support your claim, when there really is almost nothing!


How is your misrepresentation of the science any different than the use of fake quotes, etc. "being untruthful" and giving, "a false impression" by your sources?  It isn't!


Game over, you lose

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous @fire.ant 

I see your source (http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/there-is-no-consensus-on-the-safety-of-gmos/) likes to engage in selective quotation, as in its representation of the BMA's position which, in fact, aligns with mine, point by point, including my support for labeling.



"Conclusions regarding GM foods and health
 

The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations.
 

The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit. Epidemiological health surveillance will remain impractical while so few of the UK population are exposed to GM foods.

In the USA where a much larger proportion of the population has been exposed, food-derived illnesses are on the increase, although any suggestion that this could be linked to GM foods is not supported by scientific evidence. It is noteworthy that hospital admissions for systemic allergic disorders, including food allergy, increased significantly in England between 1990-91and 2000-01 despite very low levels of exposure to GM foods.

However, this debate underlines the need for the UK to take steps now to improve its nutritional and related health surveillance. The BMA still considers that with several caveats (notably adequate risk assessment procedures, independent and rigorous testing of novel foods, adequate post marketing surveillance and proper regulation), genetically modified food has enormous potential to benefit both the developed and the developing world in the long-term. Continuing sound scientific research will provide the only means of eliminating the uncertainty that still surrounds the environmental and health impact of GM crops"


But you say you've won. Go revel in your victory!

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant So you don't care that AND called out your reference for posting a fake quote, or that the EC claim specifically said it wasn't from the EC, or that the huge majority of the groups your source referenced get funding from biotech companies or have biotech company employees on their board, as their president, etc.?  


I provided the evidence, you just ignored it as you have the fake quotes or my request for you to support your claim using actual evidence to require safety and not some random opinion by a single or few scientists.  


The fact remains that the health community by and large still question the long term safety of GE foods and call for stronger regulation.(http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/there-is-no-consensus-on-the-safety-of-gmos/)  You can ignore it all you want as you have the fake quotes and groups you referenced that have biotech company employees on their board, but because you choose to ignore the evidence it doesn't change the facts.  


Fake quotes and biased references unfortunately sum up your entire argument.  The fact you haven't even admitted your source is unreliable after I exposed several fake quotes only shows how ridiculous your argument is.  


Many, many highly-qualified scientific bodies and peer-reviewed scientific journal articles question the safety of GE crops/food, just because you ignore it doesn't mean it didn't happen. http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/gmo-science/  


You provided no evidence of safety by the type of standards required to make such a claim, and the studies your sources provided was not dismissed simply because of bias, I went through nearly every study in your initial reference and showed how the huge majority of them do not support a claim of safety. All 600 of them, oh wait I forgot there wasn't even 600, that was just another fake claim!


You should have just admitted your source was unreliable and made an attempt to provide a better source, though it is obvious now that you don't have a better source.  Come on, here was a response to sources like yours from AND!  This alone should have shut you up, but in your infinite ignorance you just dug yourself a bigger hole.  It isn't a conspiracy that your source used fake and biased quotes, it is a reality.



The American Dietetic Association(which changed their name to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) put out a press release in response to the false claims made by websites such as GMO Pundit(your source), stating that they do not have an opinion on genetically engineed food. Ethan A. Bergman, the president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics even said, “In addition to being untruthful, the statement attributed to the Academy may give voters a false impression of registered dietitians and the Academy.”  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/academy-of-nutrition-and-dietetics-and-proposition-37-the-facts-173146771.html


Anyone can click your reference for safety and see they are, "being untruthful" and giving, "a false impression".


Repeating the same fake quotes from a different biased source is still cheating."


Game over, you lose.

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous You have serious reading issues.


Here is the title of #2  "Data trends show correlation between increase in organ disease and GMOs"


Here is the title of #3  "Mounting evidence that GMO crops can cause infertility and birth defects"


You have no evidence to support your claim except fake quotes from biased sources which you just repeat in hopes that people will see a different link and think it is different when it is the same old fake quotes, etc.


As I said before, if you had real unbiased evidence you would have presented it by now.  The fact that you haven't and that you have posted sources which used fake quotes, made fake claims about independent studies, are biased, etc. only shows how weak your argument really is when we look at the science.  


Claiming safety(clean bill of health) is an extraordinary claim, since it is very difficult to make such a claim in science.  This claim requires extraordinary evidence, yet you haven't posted evidence for a single GE food that is relevant, and meets the standards for long term studies to suggest safety, let alone any evidence from human trials.


If you have some real evidence to support your claim then present it.  I'm talking about long term studies using GE foods people currently eat, using rodents, then repeated using a non-rodent mammal comparable to humans and looking at real health parameters.  If you don't have this evidence then you can't even try to claim safety.  Especially when I already showed you that a huge chunk of the relevant long term studies find problems.


We were at the put up or shut up point.  You failed to put up.


Repeating the same fake quotes from a different biased source is still cheating.  


Game over, you lose.

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous You can't really be serious.


You claim, "Entine's group is not "the source." That would be Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, whose review of 1783 studies"  The journal did not review, "1783 studies"!  


First, it was a review by 4 biased authors 3 of who are genetic engineers and the other is in a pro-GMO group.  I already went through this!(see my comment that starts with, "I already responded to your second reference ") 


Second, THERE AREN'T EVEN, "1783 studies" HERE!  You don't even know what a study is!  WOW!  I'm really wasting my time here.  You think hundreds of the letters to the editor, articles, etc. that they reviewed are studies(probably because Entine said so, LOL!).  This is what is wrong with your entire argument, it is based on fake claims from biased sources!  I already showed you how the conclusion of the biased authors is not supported by the references they reviewed as well.(see my comment that starts with, "Part 2 of review by biased genetic engineers with no health background.)


I just got done showing you that, "The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission."


Then the first thing you say is, "The EC statement"!  Can you read English?  It was not an EC statement!  You even admitted it was not an EC statement when you said, "The statement is that of the EC's Research General Directorate."  It is the opinion of one person at the EC, not the whole EC as your source claimed!  The statement in the report clearly shows it is not an EC statement for those of us who can read!


As I said before :


Go back and read the rest of my comments for the biased groups, etc. since I already went through this.


Repeating the same fake quotes from a different biased source is still cheating."


Game over, you lose.

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous @fire.ant 

Entine admits nothing of the sort and the MJ article has no data that rebuts him. In any case, Entine's group is not "the source." That would be Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, whose review of 1783 studies comes to conclusions rather different from yours.

The EC statement does not include Van Montagu among its authors. The statement is that of the EC's Research General Directorate. The EC itself is a political body, one whose stance on GMOs is largely driven by politics, not science. Labeling is not a matter of science.

I grant your point on the RSM quote. It is not from the RSM per se, it is from three scientists at the

Molecular Immunology Unit, Centre for Infection, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, St George’s University.
Care to address the rest? Or would you rather take your "winnings" and go home?

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous At least you admit these are, "More fake quotes from biased sources".  Your source has admittedly received money from Monsanto.  http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine


They also use almost all of the fake or biased quotes I already exposed.



European Commission : the quote does not represent the European Commission since the report specifically states, "The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission." the authors include people such as Marc Van Montagu who has an obvious conflict of interest considering he founded two biotech companies, Plant Genetic Systems Inc. and CropDesign and makes millions from GMO's since he invented the Agrobacterium method.  

Of course, your source forgot to mention that the European Commission supports GMO labeling(see : http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/there-is-no-consensus-on-the-safety-of-gmos/ )


Royal Society of Medicine : this quote originates in an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and not from the Royal Society of Medicine.

In the same journal there is a response from medical researcher David Schubert, which points out numerous errors in this article and states, "‘GM crops consumed… with no reported ill effects’ – therefore they are safe. This statement is illogical and the conclusion is not valid. There is no assay and there is no epidemiology. If any GM food product did cause harm it would be impossible to pick up within the constant background of disease, particularly since in the USA, the biggest consumer, there are no labelling requirements."  http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/9/435.2.full


Looks like your source conveniently forgot to mention that!


Go back and read the rest of my comments for the biased groups, etc. since I already went through this.


Repeating the same fake quotes from a different biased source is still cheating.  


Game over, you lose.

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous @fire.ant 

1 shows that Americans eat too much, not that GE causes obesity

2  and 3 concern glyphosate, which is not a GE product

The fact remains, in the matter of GMOs, the science has, by and large, given GMOs a clean bill of health.

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous You mean something like this?  "we were able to demonstrate a novel link between the consumption of corn products and rising obesity trends that has not been previously attributed to the obesity epidemic. This correlation coincides with the introduction of bioengineered corns into the human food chain" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3133759/


Maybe something like this? http://www.examiner.com/article/data-trends-show-correlation-between-increase-organ-disease-and-gmos


Maybe this?  http://www.examiner.com/article/mounting-evidence-that-gmo-crops-can-cause-infertility-and-birth-defects


Are you asking for something like that?


As I said before, if you had real unbiased evidence you would have presented it by now.  The fact that you haven't and that you have posted sources which used fake quotes, made fake claims about independent studies, are biased, etc. only shows how weak your argument really is when we look at the science.  


Claiming safety(clean bill of health) is an extraordinary claim, since it is very difficult to make such a claim in science.  This claim requires extraordinary evidence, yet you haven't posted evidence for a single GE food that is relevant, and meets the standards for long term studies to suggest safety, let alone any evidence from human trials.


If you have some real evidence to support your claim then present it.  I'm talking about long term studies using GE foods people currently eat, using rodents, then repeated using a non-rodent mammal comparable to humans and looking at real health parameters.  If you don't have this evidence then you can't even try to claim safety.  Especially when I already showed you that a huge chunk of the relevant long term studies find problems.


We are really at the put up or shut up point here.

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous @fire.ant 


The fact remains that, in the matter of GMOs, the science has, by and large, given GMOs a clean bill of health.
You feel that the science is insufficiently rigorous. Fair enough. The majority of scientists disagree with you.

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous Oh what a tangled web you weave.


Anyone can go back and look at my first comment that starts with, "Dear Fire Ant" and see I posted 3 fake quotes from your first source(Tribe).  


In another post(starts with, "Next let's look at list of not exactly 600 references.") I showed that the claim of 600 studies(which also has studies on glyphosate showing your double standard) was also a fake claim since there are over 40 duplicates(also from Tribe).  


I also showed how almost every source on that list of groups were from groups that worked with biotech companies, received funds of some kind from biotech companies, or had biotech company employees on their board, etc.(starts with, "Besides the fake quotes, almost all of the groups on the list your source gives are from biased sources affiliated with biotech companies or don't tell the whole story.")


In response you tried to show that there were independent studies by posting a link to Biofortified(which Tribe is a board member).  The problem is they conveniently forgot to mention that some of these studies were not independent since they were conducted by Monsanto employees!(my comment starts with, "So first you post a source with fake  quotes now you post a source with fake independent studies?")


Cheating is not acceptable in any game, so regardless you lose.  At this point you have exposed your true colors and I have no time for someone who won't even admit the numerous fake or deceptive claims made by their sources.

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous @fire.ant 

Fake quotes? You cited one, and your charge doesn't stand up.

Monsanto employees? According to you, anyone who's ever been in the same room with a Monsanto employee is now an employee-by-association.

Further: Tribe doesn't claim all 600 studies were independent, only 1/3 of them.
Are you of the opinion that no study done by a company  involved in biotech can be scientifically valid?
I don't play chess. I play go.

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant Your sources posted fake quotes and claimed studies were independent when they are conducted by Monsanto employees.


When one's interlocutor pulls that move, all is lost.


Checkmate...

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous Look at the authors in this report.  Reidunn Aalen - has a patent on plant gene for use in genetic engineering. http://www.freshpatents.com/Reidunn-Aalen-Oslo-invdira.phpErvin Balazs - "former founding general director of the Agricultural Biotechnology Center Gödöll,, lead a unit on molecular virology and genetic engineering of crops"  Ralph Bock - "Director of the Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology of Plants", etc.  So you referenced a biased report written by people who have a conflict of interest since they are involved in genetic engineering of plants.



fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous @fire.ant 
"Your sources are biased. Mine aren't."

When one's interlocutor pulls that move, all is lost. 


Unless they can say it in German, that is

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous @fire.ant One person who happens to be the EU's chief scientist, heavily criticized by a former geography lecturer.


The "dozens of opinions" call for continued study and regulation of GE foods. They do not rebut the EASAC conclusion

Controversies about the impact of genetically modified (GM) crops have too often been based on contested science or have confounded effects of the technology with the impact of agriculture per se or changes in agronomic practice. It is vital to address the policy disconnects because there is a wide range of opportunities in prospect for improving agricultural productivity and efficiency, environmental quality and human health, by using all available technologies where appropriate. 

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant @Anonymous Glyphosate is absorbed by GE crops and are found in GE foods, etc.  There is a separate list for glyphosate which only lists a couple of hundred studies on glyphosate and that list actually includes RR crops as well.  If you actually read many of those studies the authors conclude that glyphosate based herbicides have increased because of RR crops and glyphosate based herbicides are directly related to RR crops and need to be included when discussing RR crop/food safety.  


However, your reference by biased genetic engineers included hundreds of traceability studies which has nothing to do with safety, but you don't seem to want to complain about that or discuss their bias, or the fake quotes, fake independent studies, etc. from your sources.  


As I said before, if you had real unbiased evidence you would have presented it by now.  The fact that you haven't and that you have posted sources which used fake quotes, made fake claims about independent studies, are biased, etc. only shows how weak your argument really is when we look at the science.  


Claiming safety(clean bill of health) is an extraordinary claim, since it is very difficult to make such a claim in science.  This claim requires extraordinary evidence, yet you haven't posted evidence for a single GE food that is relevant, and meets the standards for long term studies to suggest safety, let alone any evidence from human trials.

Anonymous
Anonymous

@fire.ant This is one person's opinion which she is heavily criticized for. 


EU chief scientist Anne Glover’s backing for GM condemned as “irresponsible”  http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/  


"Anne Glover, the EU's chief scientist, is playing politics with science warns Brian John of GM-Free Cymru. Her role in promoting GMOs as safe and attempting to get rid of the precautionary principle, he argues in this guest post, is all part of a carefully crafted attempt to redesign science and to impose a scientific orthodoxy worked out with the "learned" academies. Dismissing some GMO discoveries by claiming they are "contested" ignores how scientific debate really works."  http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/5630-europe-s-science-chief-seeks-to-eliminate-scientific-discourse


I provided you with dozens of opinions from health groups that disagree.  http://gmofreeusa.org/gmos-are-top/there-is-no-consensus-on-the-safety-of-gmos/

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@Anonymous @fire.ant 

A large portion, perhaps the great majority of your 1500 references concern the effects of glyphosate and other pesticides. They are neither GE foods nor feeds nor crops.

Now Trending

Miami Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...