patrick.net

eastcoast guy says

I want to know what I eat.

Exactly...so that when the "oh dear..." memo comes out, you can adjust accordingly.

New Renter says

The author of the quoted study published a rebuttal in essence accusing the author of the above of inappropriately exploiting his work:

Let's be honest, anyone that quotes scientific studies are exploiting someone else work.

CaptainShuddup says

New Renter says

The author of the quoted study published a rebuttal in essence accusing the author of the above of inappropriately exploiting his work:

Let's be honest, anyone that quotes scientific studies are exploiting someone else work.

WTF are you talking about?

What do you mean WFT do I mean?
I mean exactly what I said. We're all guilty of finding an article about a study that aligns with a belief or sides with our arguments.
99.98% of those articles don't even include any details of the study what so ever. The author of that article is even more guilty reporting on a study with out even as much delving into the details of those studies.

"Hey study says Sex makes you smarter... whada you say Einstein bend over!"

New Renter says

eastcoast guy says

Any study that shows any kind of deleterious effects of food with GMO ingredients will find 100 detractors.

That's because such studies are nothing but bullshit designed to scare people into funding more bad "science".

I'm going to have to side with New Renter on this one. From the Business Insider article he cited,

Though the authors claim no conflicts of interest, the funding for the study itself was provided by Verity Farms, owned by one of the study's authors, which sells non-GMO grains. They also got funding from the Australian non-profit, Institute of Health and Environmental Research, which seems dedicated to anti-GMO activism.

eastcoast guy says

Any study that shows any kind of deleterious effects of food with GMO ingredients will find 100 detractors. That's why we need labeling of produce that contains ingredients from GMO plants (or animals) so everybody can decide for herself.

I'm all for labeling GMO foods as full disclosure, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not GMO foods are harmful to health. If that question is not answered definitively, then "non-GMO" is just a marketing label.

People absolutely should not be deciding for themselves whether or not GMO foods are unhealthy any more then they should be deciding for themselves whether or not smoking or eating a pound of bacon every day for breakfast is healthy or not. The truth is not a democracy. Whether or not GMO foods are dangerous is not a matter of opinion. It is a factual statement that is either right or wrong and acceptance of either conclusion should be based on real, peer-reviewed, and reproducible results.

Before I read the study in the original post, I had no reason to believe in the health danger claims made against GMOs. After I read the study -- not knowing that it had been discredited -- I changed my mind on the basis that new evidence, going through peer review, has been established to support the claims. Hell, if the rats were normal rats, as opposed to ones who were bred to form tumors, that evidence would have been overwhelming.

However, once New Renter pointed out that peer review actually discredited that study and pointed out the specific flaws, such as using rats bred to form tumors in old age, I immediately accepted that the study did not pass mustard and adjusted my world view accordingly.

The moral of the story is that your allegiance should be to the rational process of the scientific method, not to any specific conclusion. Every person should be willing to completely abandon whatever they believed in when solid evidence contradicting that belief is presented. Sure, be skeptical about everything, but never take the position that you will never accept a conclusion simply because you don't want to accept it.

The debate over the health effects of GMO is a scientific question, not a religious one. There is a definitive, correct answer that does not vary from individual to individual.

CaptainShuddup says

We're all guilty of finding an article about a study that aligns with a belief or sides with our arguments.

In my case, I found an article that contradicted my belief, changed my belief and posted the article, only to find out the study was flawed, and changed my belief again.

CaptainShuddup says

hat do you mean WFT do I mean?

I mean exactly what I said. We're all guilty of finding an article about a study that aligns with a belief or sides with our arguments.

99.98% of those articles don't even include any details of the study what so ever. The author of that article is even more guilty reporting on a study with out even as much delving into the details of those studies.

"Hey study says Sex makes you smarter... whada you say Einstein bend over!"

But that is NOT what happened here. In this situation a person with an agenda misconstrued the findings of a study.

Its one thing to present evidence which supports your argument. Its another thing entirely to present evidence which does not but falsely claim it does.

Dan8267 says

CaptainShuddup says

We're all guilty of finding an article about a study that aligns with a belief or sides with our arguments.

In my case, I found an article that contradicted my belief, changed my belief and posted the article, only to find out the study was flawed, and changed my belief again.

Keep in mind rodents are not that great a model for humans. If cancer behaved exactly the same way in rodents as it does in humans we'd have cured it decades ago.

Dan8267 says

In my case, I found an article that contradicted my belief, changed my belief and posted the article, only to find out the study was flawed, and changed my belief again.

You both exploited two studies, and were exploited by others who posted the two articles.

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

In my case, I found an article that contradicted my belief, changed my belief and posted the article, only to find out the study was flawed, and changed my belief again.

You both exploited two studies, and were exploited by others who posted the two articles.

ex·ploit (ksploit, k-sploit)
n. An act or deed, especially a brilliant or heroic one. See Synonyms at feat1.

tr.v. (k-sploit, ksploit) ex·ploit·ed, ex·ploit·ing, ex·ploits
1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.
3. To advertise; promote.

I'll assume you meant the noun...

Dan8267 says

The moral of the story is that your allegiance should be to the rational process of the scientific method, not to any specific conclusion. Every person should be willing to completely abandon whatever they believed in when solid evidence contradicting that belief is presented. Sure, be skeptical about everything, but never take the position that you will never accept a conclusion simply because you don't want to accept it.

The debate over the health effects of GMO is a scientific question, not a religious one. There is a definitive, correct answer that does not vary from individual to individual.

Don't make the scientific method into a religion. GMO-derived ingredients may or may not appear to have harmful effects according to when, how, where and what you look at (and that effects can most assuredly vary from individual to individual should be known to anybody with a rudimentary understanding of biology. That's why it says 'produced in a plant that also handles peanuts' so that people allergic to peanuts can avoid the product, which is completely harmless to others).
The scientific method is not there to give definitive answers. These do not exists in science, only in religion. Peer review does not guarantee that a study has been performed correctly - peers are humans and not superhumans. Science is a slow process that achieves incremental progress. That of course is much too slow for the GMO pushers. Let's stick to the scientific process and see what the next 20 years and the next 100 studies bring. Until then I want at least labeling so I can avoid GMO ingredients (better a total ban).

Dan8267 says

The debate over the health effects of GMO is a scientific question, not a religious one. There is a definitive, correct answer that does not vary from individual to individual.

That's a fallacy. Science is not like math which starts off one or more axioms which eventually builds a whole system that's proven. Math just is, science isn't, it is evolving every day. Not only do we find out that things we thought to be healthy aren't and vice versa, all species keep evolving and adapting to pathogens, toxins and things that are healthy for them. The only thing that is a fact is that scientists don't know whether GMOs are dangerous or not on the mid to long term, and for the short term there is a lot of debate, some think they are and some think they aren't and data is inconclusive. Everybody should have the right to decide whether they want to take on that risk or not, similar to whether they want to eat items preserved with sodium benzoate (which is generally deemed to be safe) or not.

New Renter says

Would you like the ingredient list to mention the food product contains radioactive carbon-14, potassium-40, thorium-223, uranium-238, polonium-218, and tritium(hydrogen-3) as well?

No, just "used GMOs as ingredients and/or in the manufacturing process" - very simple. This has nothing to do with listing every isotope ;)

Peanuts have been proven in rare cases to trigger life threatening allergic response. This warrants a label. Lead has been proven to cause long term health problems. This warrants a label. The health impact of GMO based foods have NOT been proven to be any worse than non GMO based foods. In my opinion this is not a reason to legally demand labels.

Given the now ubiquitous state of GMO crops makes accurate labeling difficult and expensive. IMO It's not too much to ask consumers to simply assume a food product contains GMO ingredients unless labeled otherwise.

eastcoast guy says

GMO-derived ingredients may or may not appear to have harmful effects according to when, how, where and what you look at (and that effects can most assuredly vary from individual to individual

You missed the point. I didn't saying that it's impossible for there to be any variance in the effects of GMO from individual to individual. I said that whether or not GMO are dangerous at all is either true or false, not subject to the opinion of the individual.

Whether or not smoking causes cancer isn't something that varies depending whether or not the smoker believes that it does. People should not be "deciding" whether or not smoking causes cancer based on their cultural preferences or gut feelings. People should listen to the science that shows smoking causes cancer. By the some token, people shouldn't be "deciding" whether or not GMO foods are unhealthy, they should accept what the real science shows regardless of whether or not its the conclusion they want.

eastcoast guy says

The scientific method is not there to give definitive answers.

If you believe that, try walking over a cliff. After all, gravity is just a theory.

eastcoast guy says

Science is a slow process that achieves incremental progress.

We went from the invention of the airplane to the man on the moon in 66 years, and within another 50 years created a world wide computer network that delivers all of mankind's knowledge to a playing-card-deck-sized supercomputer that you hold in your hand. And you call that slow?

Science has more than proven itself.

I was willing to change my position on GMOs based on actual evidence, as apparent by the fact that I started this thread. My question to both sides on the debate is, what evidence would you be willing to accept that your belief (either that GMO foods are dangerous or not) is wrong?

And a follow up question to those who think GMOs are dangerous, why? What exactly is causing you to conclude that they are or might be dangerous?

If the tumor study in the OP wasn't discredited or if some study that passes scientific scrutiny was published, I'd be wholeheartedly willing to accept that GMOs are unsafe. But I haven't seen any reason to even suspect that GMOs are unsafe. So where is all this hysteria coming from? Is it just a cultural thing? Are the detractors people who just hate anything that's "unnatural" or doesn't fit the hippie lifestyle?

I mean really, if there is no reason to believe GMO foods are unsafe, it is unreasonable -- no pun intended -- to assume they are. After all, you cannot prove a negative. James Randi says it well...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/qWJTUAezxAI

eastcoast guy says

GMO-derived ingredients may or may not appear to have harmful effects according to when, how, where and what you look at (and that effects can most assuredly vary from individual to individual should be known to anybody with a rudimentary understanding of biology. That's why it says 'produced in a plant that also handles peanuts' so that people allergic to peanuts can avoid the product, which is completely harmless to others).

Uh, no. It is a known fact that some people are allergic to peanuts, whereas there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any GMO product currently being produced is harmful to ANY people in any way. Hundreds of people die from eating peanuts. There has yet to be a even one confirmed case of a person dying from eating GMO food. This "labeling" nonsense is just unfounded hysteria.

Dan8267 says

I also posted a comment on the OP's website stating that the study was discredited. They should really remove it from their website.

I bet you they won't change a thing.

@Dan

As a scientific minded guy I'd hope you would wait to accept something as fact until the initial finding are

1) reproduced by multiple independent sources
2) shown to be significant in a human study.

A single study, especially in a non-human model may warrant caution but not final judgement.

New Renter says

single study,

My mistake. I actually listen to the site that said the study was peer-reviewed. It evidently wasn't.

http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

Peer-reviewed European study concluding adverse effects on mammalian health.

mell says

http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

Peer-reviewed European study concluding adverse effects on mammalian health.

You did note that one of the authors of this study is the same author as the OT study? Thanks but I'll wait for independent multiple verifications before putting stock in ANYTHING this clown touches.

mell says

http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

Peer-reviewed European study concluding adverse effects on mammalian health.

Bogus.

In 2009, the Séralini lab published another study, which re-analyzed the toxicity data for NK603 (glyphosate resistant), MON 810, and MON 863 strains.[24] The data included three rat feeding studies published by Monsanto scientists on MON 810 (Bt corn).[25][26][27] This study concluded that the three crops caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats.[24][non-primary source needed]

The EFSA reviewed the 2009 Séralini paper and concluded that the authors' claims were not supported by the data in their paper, that many of their fundamental statistical criticisms of the 2007 paper also applied to the 2009 paper, and that there was no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions that the three GM maize types were safe for human and animal health, and for the environment.[28]

The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB) also reviewed the Séralini 2009 study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."[29] The HCB also questioned the authors' independence, noting that, in 2010, the Séralini web page still showed a 2008 Austrian anti-GM article which had been previously withdrawn by the authors themselves as flawed.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results from the 2009 Séralini study were due to chance alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

Homeboy says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

This study has NEVER been refuted to this day and found hundreds of supporters in the scientific field, likely more than critics. This is pretty much extensively peer-reviewed, though the conclusions are still being debated today. Scientists debate over whether the data is mostly conclusive enough or not for a ban, caution, or warrants further studies, but the data itself is not in question.

donjumpsuit says

IT immediately got mis-construed

I agree it got partially misconstrued in terms of conclusions you cite, but not as a toxicology study as which it still holds valid to this day. Also the references you cited for criticism (two dozen?) can easily be countered with at least the same amount of references from scientist who support it. Well has the paper been retracted? No. At least it has been deeply scrutinized/reviewed by now, so let's wait if it will be retracted, then you can have your field day, for now it is a peer-reviewed study ;) What is worry-some is that If you dig deeper into the criticism (some of which may be warranted) you will find that a lot of the same "issues" exist with the safety studies the GM companies submitted for approval, a lot of which had ridiculously short durations. Let's wait and see.

I got an idea, why don't they retry those experiments using rats that weren't bred on three mile island?

mell says

What is worry-some is that If you dig deeper into the criticism (some of which may be warranted) you will find that a lot of the same "issues" exist with the safety studies the GM companies submitted for approval, a lot of which had ridiculously short durations. Let's wait and see.

and while we wait and see clear labeling of any GMO-derived food ingredient

mell says

donjumpsuit says

IT immediately got mis-construed

I agree it got partially misconstrued in terms of conclusions you cite, but not as a toxicology study as which it still holds valid to this day. Also the references you cited for criticism (two dozen?) can easily be countered with at least the same amount of references from scientist who support it. Well has the paper been retracted? No. At least it has been deeply scrutinized/reviewed by now, so let's wait if it will be retracted, then you can have your field day, for now it is a peer-reviewed study ;) What is worry-some is that If you dig deeper into the criticism (some of which may be warranted) you will find that a lot of the same "issues" exist with the safety studies the GM companies submitted for approval, a lot of which had ridiculously short durations. Let's wait and see.

The problem with such a "wait and see" approach is that leaves these flawed studies to be used as "evidence" of the dangers of GMOs. Note the timing between the release of the original OT study with California's prop 37. Had this study not been exposed as fraudulent so quickly it would likely have been used to incite anti-GMO sentiment enough to pass prop37. With this precinct other states would follow, "just to be on the safe side". Then it would be too late - the anti-GMO advocates would have accomplished their goals, truth be damned.

A parallel can be found in the work of Dr. Robert G. Health who in a 1974 Tulane university study "proved" marijuana kills brain cells.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20064743,00.html

(sorry for the people magazine link, but the general public never saw the original article for themselves. More on that later)

These results were exactly what the powers-that-be (including then governor of California Ronald Reagan) needed to justify the war on marijuana. Critics of the study were unable to obtain details on how the study was performed in order to replicate the results. It took multiple freedom of information act requests to get the information. When it was eventually released The study was thoroughly reviewed by a distinguished panel of scientists sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. Their results were published under the title, Marijuana and Health in 1982. Heath's work was sharply criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys), its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged".

Numerous studies conducted on human populations have been undertaken, yet none have indicated any correlation to cannabis usage and brain damage.

http://www.angelfire.com/hiphop2/truthonpot/mythbuster.html

http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/2/myths.html

This is an example of how a flawed "scientific" study can be used to successfully promote an agenda. To this day people believe pot kills brain cells.

donjumpsuit says

When really it has nothing to do with GMO's at all, it was about drowning rats in herbicide.

Drowning rats in herbicide, or suffocating monkeys with smoke nope, no parallels here...

New Renter says

The problem with such a "wait and see" approach is that leaves these flawed studies to be used as "evidence" of the dangers of GMOs. Note the timing between the release of the original OT study with California's prop 37. Had this study not been exposed as fraudulent so quickly it would likely have been used to incite anti-GMO sentiment enough to pass prop37. With this precinct other states would follow, "just to be on the safe side". Then it would be too late - the anti-GMO advocates would have accomplished their goals, truth be damned.

A parallel can be found in the work of Dr. Robert G. Health who in a 1974 Tulane university study "proved" marijuana kills brain cells.

Best point made so far.

Public hysteria causes bad public policy.

Speaking of which, I'm still wondering why those who believe GMO foods are dangerous do so. So far, I've seen nothing that even suggests GMO foods are bad other than some thoroughly debunked studies that were so flawed that one has a hard time believing the flaws were human error rather than deliberate deception.

The parallels between GMO and THC are strong. THC is irrationally demonized by one segment of the population, the buzz-kills, and GMOs are irrationally demonized by another segment of the population, the hippies. Is it just coincidence that these two segments happen to hate each other? Are they really criticizing weed and GMOs? Or are the hippies criticizing the man and the man criticizing the hippies? Seems more like a culture war than anything else.

mell says

I agree it got partially misconstrued in terms of conclusions you cite, but not as a toxicology study as which it still holds valid to this day. Also the references you cited for criticism (two dozen?) can easily be countered with at least the same amount of references from scientist who support it. Well has the paper been retracted? No. At least it has been deeply scrutinized/reviewed by now, so let's wait if it will be retracted, then you can have your field day, for now it is a peer-reviewed study ;) What is worry-some is that If you dig deeper into the criticism (some of which may be warranted) you will find that a lot of the same "issues" exist with the safety studies the GM companies submitted for approval, a lot of which had ridiculously short durations. Let's wait and see.

Mell, you are obviously out of your mind.

donjumpsuit says

As for THC. I have spoken directly to a lung surgeon through a friend, and he mentioned that he sees smokers lung from marijuana and smokers lung from cigarrettes with enough frequency, that he can assure me that even though the marijuana lung is blackened, there are typically never any tumors associated with it.

Not a shocker. In fact the higher potency marijuana available now may lead to lessened "smokers lung" since users don't need to puff as much as is needed with natural strains.

Personally I'd like to see GMOs with high potency THC expression genes added. That'd be a sure fire motivation for more Americans to eat vegetables. Gets rid of the smokers lung problem too.

donjumpsuit says

Posting this specific study, the "Seralini study", is disgraceful, defeatist to your argument, and frankly an agressive attempt to create hysteria in lieu of a productive discussion.

Next, anybody even remotely defending this type of study, especially after you read the actual "Food and Chemical Toxicology" publication (Impact factor 3), you would be quite remise in that decision.

Defend your anti-GMO stance as you wish, but please don't let flawed science be the torch of your arguments.

No. The data is solid, sorry. I am willing to debate the conclusions though. Also, bashing a study that has NOT been retracted so far that much is not good for any debate.

donjumpsuit says

If you have a list of scientists who without a doubt support this study, please post them in a list here, so I can go out in the world and make certain that their scientific pursuits are closely monitored for grotesque methods and unsound deductions.

Here's a starter - go ahead and monitor them, you are the expert, I gladly concede that if we judge by degree, profession and credentials. And maybe homeboy can help you monitor ;)

http://gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/

mell says

donjumpsuit says

Posting this specific study, the "Seralini study", is disgraceful, defeatist to your argument, and frankly an agressive attempt to create hysteria in lieu of a productive discussion.

Next, anybody even remotely defending this type of study, especially after you read the actual "Food and Chemical Toxicology" publication (Impact factor 3), you would be quite remise in that decision.

Defend your anti-GMO stance as you wish, but please don't let flawed science be the torch of your arguments.

No. The data is solid, sorry. I am willing to debate the conclusions though. Also, bashing a study that has NOT been retracted so far that much is not good for any debate.

Just what are you basing your assertion on that "the data is solid?"

This is again reminding me of the backlash against the LHC and the claims it may create an earth consuming black hole:

http://www.lhcdefense.org/

Before you hop on this crazy train take a look at this segment The Daily Show aired where they interviewed the founder of this anti LHC group:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider

(sorry, video unavailable on Youtube)

If these crackpots had their way the LHC would never have been used and the discovery of the Higgs Boson would not have happened. We'd also have missed out on all the other upcoming discoveries as well.

Dan8267 says

The scientific method is not there to give definitive answers.

If you believe that, try walking over a cliff. After all, gravity is just a theory.

People have been faling over cliffs long before any kind of theory of gravitation was developed. This is common sense but has nothing to do with science. Newton discovered a law that describes the attraction between two bodies of given masses at a given distance from each other. However this law did not give correct answers in all cases. ("A planet in Mercury's situation should gradually shift its nearest approach to the sun a fifth of a milliradian per century faster than the rate that Newton's law could account for"). Science uses statistics to assess probabilities. If it were able to provide definitive answers there wouldn't be any probabilities involved. Inform yourself about how many different GMO plants there are and how they use the GMO principle. In science it is absolutely necessary to carefully define where, how, what and when. Then we measure and measure again and the results are expressed in probabilities. It should be my decision if I want to live with these probabilities or not and that's why I want labeling of GMO ingredients in my food.

eastcoast guy says

It should be my decision if I want to live with these probabilities or not and that's why I want labeling of GMO ingredients in my food.

The probability is unless you grow all your own food or eat exclusively "organic" you've already been eating GMO foods for the past 15 years.

mell says

Here's a starter - go ahead and monitor them, you are the expert, I gladly concede that if we judge by degree, profession and credentials. And maybe homeboy can help you monitor ;)

O.K., first guy: Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, senior scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists, USA

From UCS website:

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/monsanto-fails-at-improving.html

Monsanto Fails at Improving Agriculture

Help UCS Set the Record Straight by Sharing Our New Ad Campaign

Sure, it's not like that guy has an axe to grind or anything. LOL.

New Renter says

eastcoast guy says

It should be my decision if I want to live with these probabilities or not and that's why I want labeling of GMO ingredients in my food.

The probability is unless you grow all your own food or eat exclusively "organic" you've already been eating GMO foods for the past 15 years.

Yeah thanks to a corrupt congress, now corrupt Obama and the lobbying of such firms. Which is not the case in the EU. Corporations in search of a profit rob of us of a choice and force feed this stuff to us.

I realize this field is your source of income , but otherwise you make no sense. Who cares about GMO-just label the darn thing and let people have a choice. If you didn't use such corrupt and heavy handed tactics -there wouldn't be a backlash at all. You want to shove your products down our throats, you want our cash for it-but no, us consumers are like little kids who can't understand such great concepts and should just shudup and buy your magical products-no questions asked.

Then you wonder why people don't like these companies? Nobody likes corrupt, greedy companies that take your cash and bribe congress from giving you a choice. That has nothing to do with GMO .

donjumpsuit says

But something tells me you are quite satisfied in calling GMO's niggers.

don't let your emotions get in the way of rational debate there, donjumps

donjumpsuit says

Your opinion is valuble, and it is now being used in a very dangerous context.

Thanks, yours is too. We don't have to discuss this further. What I want is that everybody can do their own research and then make a decision of whether they want to consume GMOs or not and that requires labeling.

Dan8267 says

People absolutely should not be deciding for themselves whether or not GMO foods are unhealthy any more then they should be deciding for themselves whether or not smoking or eating a pound of bacon every day for breakfast is healthy or not. The truth is not a democracy. Whether or not GMO foods are dangerous is not a matter of opinion. It is a factual statement that is either right or wrong and acceptance of either conclusion should be based on real, peer-reviewed, and reproducible results.

Maybe i'm not reading this correctly, but it reads as if you are suggesting that eating a pound of bacon every day for breakfast, is akin to smoking, in regards to ones health.

It's just odd, knowing what we all know now thanks to science, that eating bacon IS healthy. Unlike the misinformation that the government and their bad science spread for decades (ie. the food pyramid) led people to believe that eating bacon was "unhealthy"