Why GM foods are bad...

[rynnor]

On GMOAnswers - http://organicmattersblog.com/2013/07/31/gmo-answers-its-all-how-you-ask-the-question/

 

[rynnor]

Oh and apparently FCT's retraction of Seralini's article does not fit the criteria - insufficient survey size is not enough to retract an article so the retraction itself is invalid.

In practice most would just mention the small sample size if they referenced it - retraction is pretty much only for fraud so this is fishy.

http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/a...i-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical

 

[Wij]

Personally one of my main concerns is the addition of new proteins into existing foodstuff's and its effect on food allergies and those humans who have them.

If you become allergic to one of the anti pest proteins then if it becomes popular you are in a world of pain - without useful labelling of what's actually in your foodstuffs and all of its constituent ingredients what the hell would you eat?

You are also exposing people to what were proteins that humans would not generally encounter potentially into staple foods. Food allergies are already increasing at an alarming rate.

These are risks inherent in GMO itself not just a specific product.

Not GMO itself as the you could introduce proteins to one crop that are already common in another.

Are food allergies increasing more in the US where GM is common or Europe where it is not?

 

[Wij]

Oh and apparently FCT's retraction of Seralini's article does not fit the criteria - insufficient survey size is not enough to retract an article so the retraction itself is invalid.

In practice most would just mention the small sample size if they referenced it - retraction is pretty much only for fraud so this is fishy.

http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/a...i-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical

Why quote that bollocks from GMWatch?

From the guidelines in that very page,

Honest error: they made a conclusion that the evidence did not justify. An error.
Unethical conduct: the treatment of the rats was in humane and way short of guidelines. They also tried to gag the reporters.

 

[Wij]

On GMOAnswers - http://organicmattersblog.com/2013/07/31/gmo-answers-its-all-how-you-ask-the-question/

As I said, one link where a scientist defends himself in his own words.

And organic matters is far from a neutral observer.

 

[rynnor]

Are food allergies increasing more in the US where GM is common or Europe where it is not?

No idea - one theory is that we are just identifying the cause better these days but I'm not really suggesting it will increase the number of sufferers but it will complicate their lives.

This study by the Food Standards Agency showed no real change in incidence - http://www.foodbase.org.uk/results.php?f_report_id=249

Having crops with multi proteins is a potential nightmare - my youngest is allergic to eggs and (to a lesser extent) wheat gluten - if they splice in one of those to another staple crop like the potato she's really going to struggle to find much to eat.

 

[rynnor]

Why quote that bollocks from GMWatch?

From the guidelines in that very page,

Honest error: they made a conclusion that the evidence did not justify. An error.
Unethical conduct: the treatment of the rats was in humane and way short of guidelines. They also tried to gag the reporters.

Honest error can only be called by the author though - it means you accidentally screwed up the data somehow without realising - that doesn't apply here.

Unethical research - treatment of the animals is not the issue for this one (as most animal research is unethical if you regard the sanctity of animal life) - it tends to be detrimental human experimentation on duped volunteers or prisoners etc.

Neither is applicable - the only reason would be fraud which both sides deny.

 

[rynnor]

As I said, one link where a scientist defends himself in his own words.

And organic matters is far from a neutral observer.

Of course though it doesn't pretend to be anything else like the more neutral sounding 'GMOAnswers' corporate shill

 

[rynnor]

Honest error can only be called by the author though - it means you accidentally screwed up the data somehow without realising - that doesn't apply here.

Unethical research - treatment of the animals is not the issue for this one (as most animal research is unethical if you regard the sanctity of animal life) - it tends to be detrimental human experimentation on duped volunteers or prisoners etc.

Neither is applicable - the only reason would be fraud which both sides deny.

Edit: Reading the retraction guidelines here - http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction guidelines.pdf - the journal could have published an 'expression of concern' - under this bit presumably -

• there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case

 

[rynnor]

You can see the sort of unethical research they are talking about in a list here - http://publicationethics.org/category/keywords/unethical-research

I thought you might be interested in this one - http://publicationethics.org/case/hiv-homeopathy

 

[Wij]

No idea - one theory is that we are just identifying the cause better these days but I'm not really suggesting it will increase the number of sufferers but it will complicate their lives.

This study by the Food Standards Agency showed no real change in incidence - http://www.foodbase.org.uk/results.php?f_report_id=249

Having crops with multi proteins is a potential nightmare - my youngest is allergic to eggs and (to a lesser extent) wheat gluten - if they splice in one of those to another staple crop like the potato she's really going to struggle to find much to eat.

It's perfectly possible the technique could be used to remove proteins which don't affect the viability of a crop if they are harmful.

 

[Wij]

Honest error can only be called by the author though - it means you accidentally screwed up the data somehow without realising - that doesn't apply here.

Unethical research - treatment of the animals is not the issue for this one (as most animal research is unethical if you regard the sanctity of animal life) - it tends to be detrimental human experimentation on duped volunteers or prisoners etc.

Neither is applicable - the only reason would be fraud which both sides deny.

Ethics here?
http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2...onsor-engineered-embargo-to-prevent-scrutiny/

In any case your objection to the retraction is procedural. The facts of the case are still that the evidence doesn't justify the conclusion.

 

[Scouse]

I'm all for research on GM foods for the obvious benefits they could provide.

However, I'm not for widespread use yet for one simple reason - there's clearly a lack of decent empirical data in any meaningful volume, and a lack of genuine impetus to produce that data in an open manner, on the safety issues - from both a human-ingestion standpoint and a wider crop-use effect standpoint.

With something as fundamental as our food-chain and wider ecology are at stake then we can't be too cautious IMO - regardless of the current pressures.

As humans we don't appreciate or evaluate these sorts of risks very well - our evolutionary-defined psychological makeup gives us a poor ability to do so.


When we have a current system that works incredibly well (7bn humans and counting) then it would be folly to move to another in what would, effectively, be a blind leap by ill-informed idiots with a naturally ingrained inability, (and embryonic knowledge level) to measure risk of this type.

 

[rynnor]

Ethics here?
http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2...onsor-engineered-embargo-to-prevent-scrutiny/

In any case your objection to the retraction is procedural. The facts of the case are still that the evidence doesn't justify the conclusion.

Sure but that journal signed up to these procedures - retractions are really rather rare events.

 

[rynnor]

Isn't it true that to research a specific GM crop you need the permission of the patent holder?

Also - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-gm-food-is-patent-not-fact-that-its-gm.shtml

 

[Wij]

I'm all for research on GM foods for the obvious benefits they could provide.

However, I'm not for widespread use yet for one simple reason - there's clearly a lack of decent empirical data in any meaningful volume, and a lack of genuine impetus to produce that data in an open manner, on the safety issues - from both a human-ingestion standpoint and a wider crop-use effect standpoint.

With something as fundamental as our food-chain and wider ecology are at stake then we can't be too cautious IMO - regardless of the current pressures.

As humans we don't appreciate or evaluate these sorts of risks very well - our evolutionary-defined psychological makeup gives us a poor ability to do so.


When we have a current system that works incredibly well (7bn humans and counting) then it would be folly to move to another in what would, effectively, be a blind leap by ill-informed idiots with a naturally ingrained inability, (and embryonic knowledge level) to measure risk of this type.

I'm sorry but there's a huge amount of data and research. Check the link from earlier for a sample.

 

[Bahumat]

Wow Freddyshouse is blessed to have so many GM experts as members.

 

[Wij]

Isn't it true that to research a specific GM crop you need the permission of the patent holder?

Also - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-gm-food-is-patent-not-fact-that-its-gm.shtml

There are certainly independantly funded studies:

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

As to whether they require the patent holders permission I don't know but a holder who refused permission would soon have a bunch of serious questions being asked by the scientific community and food safety NGOs.

 

[rynnor]

I thought the argument about patenting something as basic and essential as food was quite persuasive? Even if we end up in 50 years saying these things posed no health risks to humans they could still be reviled for the economic damage they cause.

 

[rynnor]

This ones interesting from your list - http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/2/431.full

They said the stuff was safe despite it affecting major organs with the liver noticeably shrinking in all groups that were given the GM'd food regardless of dosage?

I'd hate to see unsafe

And though a rat study is interesting is it really proof of how humans will react? The title is misleading.

 

[Scouse]

I'm sorry but there's a huge amount of data and research. Check the link from earlier for a sample.

Conflicting research. And not that much when you consider what's at stake (which we can't effectively - which is the point I was making).

Even news publications such as the excellent and hugely pro-GM New Scientist contain articles on an almost weekly basis with possible new downsides, research that shows, effectively "we don't know enough", article after article that GM food is all promise and no result and articles about current deployments throwing up as many problems as they solve.

Don't get me wrong Wij, I'm very very pro-GM. Up until actual deployment of the technology - where I'm very very pro-caution. It's not a technology that can ever be rolled back - so we'd better be damn sure that we're ready to deal with any eventualities.

We're clearly, clearly, not. Not yet. Not by a long way.

We don't even have solutions to problems that we know GM crops currently cause, never mind the ecological ones we're unaware of because our knowledge of the whole area is in it's infancy.

Answer me this - considering we've already enough food to feed the entire planet (very well) if we make organisational changes, what's the rush to implementation, other than for the economic advantage of a few?

 

[Job]

I think they need to and quite probably will change the name of the process.
Genetically modified sounds like Frankenstein copyrighted it.

 

[Wij]

On GMOAnswers - http://organicmattersblog.com/2013/07/31/gmo-answers-its-all-how-you-ask-the-question/

Yes, believing the people who actually do GM would be stupid. Like believing NASA about Moon Landings rather than independant experts like these:

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

 

[Wij]

Answer me this - considering we've already enough food to feed the entire planet (very well) if we make organisational changes, what's the rush to implementation, other than for the economic advantage of a few?

Don't have time to type my only reply so maybe this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/3343317/Why-we-need-GM-foods.html

 

[rynnor]

Don't have time to type my only reply so maybe this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/3343317/Why-we-need-GM-foods.html

5 year old scaremongering based on the faulty premise that we are running out of food - Malthus would be proud

Food prices rose because idiots decided to combat CO2 with bio fuels and now large area's that could be growing food crops are growing fuel crops.

And still there's no shortages...

 

[rynnor]

Yes, believing the people who actually do GM would be stupid. Like believing NASA about Moon Landings rather than independant experts like these:

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

Seriously? Can't you do a little bit better than this?

 

[Wij]

Seriously? Can't you do a little bit better than this?

Mockery is fine. And it's a great site.

 

[Wij]

5 year old scaremongering based on the faulty premise that we are running out of food - Malthus would be proud

Food prices rose because idiots decided to combat CO2 with bio fuels and now large area's that could be growing food crops are growing fuel crops.

And still there's no shortages...

Haven't read it sorry. Google for your own.

Have you got any evidence of safety issues yet or can we discount the original argument?

 

[rynnor]

Haven't read it sorry. Google for your own.

Have you got any evidence of safety issues yet or can we discount the original argument?

Other than the various papers we already discussed? And surely one only needs reasonable risks rather than proof of a disaster when it comes to something as key as the human food chain?

Or do you set loss of potential profits above human health?

 

[Scouse]

@Wij I think that article makes many assumptions, aside from what I think is the erroneous stance on food security and availability, it addresses none of the issues of the lack of long-term research into safety, efficacy and ecology that the current levels of research indicate are needed.

Yes, the benefits are tantalisingly close and very apparent and the temptation is to grab them now - but I think this is a mistake.

By analogy - we "went for the prize" when it came to oil, mining for rare metals etc. etc. And the result, alongside our obvious and massive economic benefits, has been concomitant environmental degredation (through a variety of mechanisms) - to the point that many scientists would say that the earth is going through another mass extinction episode - and we know for a fact that ecologically we're straining at the seams.

GM has the potential to bring us even bigger reward. However, the risks are even greater. Once it's out there and in a couple of generations we realise we've made a mistake we can't just send a cleanup crew to "decontaminate the topsoil" - we'll be stuck on a path we barely understand.

Given the glaring inadequacy of our knowledge in this area, the all-encompasing nature of the changes we would be making not just to our food chain but to the entire earth's ecology, and the demonstrable track record of humans rushing in before they're ready, it's hugely reckless to deploy the technology actively at this time.