Why GM foods are bad...

[Wij]

Because of the precautionary principle plus the consumer issues are real - people must be able to exercise a choice over this stuff - currently they couldn't.

The precautionary principle is bollocks. Any amount of evidence is never enough.

People have been scared by dumb articles and bad research but fuck it put labels on. I'll buy.

 

[rynnor]

The precautionary principle is bollocks. Any amount of evidence is never enough.

People have been scared by dumb articles and bad research but fuck it put labels on. I'll buy.

Sadly there's no real way to give consumers a choice once you accept GM because it will be impossible to isolate it in the supply chain - the same way supermarkets cant really guarantee their products don't contain traces of unlisted allergens that may have been prepared at the same processors etc.

 

[Wij]

Sadly there's no real way to give consumers a choice once you accept GM because it will be impossible to isolate it in the supply chain - the same way supermarkets cant really guarantee their products don't contain traces of unlisted allergens that may have been prepared at the same processors etc.

And given that the products are tested for safety that's great because eventually people will realise they've all been eating GM for years with no ill effects and get over it.

 

[rynnor]

And given that the products are tested for safety that's great because eventually people will realise they've all been eating GM for years with no ill effects and get over it.

Assuming its not seen as one of the greatest mistakes in human history - both possibilities exist.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's what i meant earlier that it's possible that we need GM stuff already to survive, but the governments aren't telling us we're eating GM because people would flip out.

 

[Wij]

Assuming its not seen as one of the greatest mistakes in human history - both possibilities exist.

Logically yes, but probably? No.

There's no credible mechanism that would render GM crops dangerous by virtue of them being GM. There's also no evidence for them being so. This leaves the GM IS DANGEROUS hypothesis on roughly the same level as the HOMEOPATHY WORKS one.

 

[rynnor]

Logically yes, but probably? No.

There's no credible mechanism that would render GM crops dangerous by virtue of them being GM. There's also no evidence for them being so. This leaves the GM IS DANGEROUS hypothesis on roughly the same level as the HOMEOPATHY WORKS one.

Now your as guilty of distortion as those you revile on the other side of the argument.

Grats!

 

[Wij]

Now your as guilty of distortion as those you revile on the other side of the argument.

Grats!

Nope. There is no mechanism. Stuff we ingest is digested by acid and turned into shite. We do not start incorporating its genes. Unless arse-grapes are caused by drinking wine?

 

[rynnor]

Nope. There is no mechanism. Stuff we ingest is digested by acid and turned into shite. We do not start incorporating its genes. Unless arse-grapes are caused by drinking wine?

See this is the kind of hyperbole I'm talking about - you raise a ridiculous straw man to try to ridicule any doubts about GM.

 

[Job]

But hes right...it reminds of my favourite scientific ass covering...they concluded from a study that there is no evidence whatsoevet that mobiles damage childrens brains...but it would be a good idea not to let them use them...
Which is like saying there is no evidence rabbits explode...but it would be prudent to keep away from them.

 

[Wij]

But hes right...it reminds of my favourite scientific ass covering...they concluded from a study that there is no evidence whatsoevet that mobiles damage childrens brains...but it would be a good idea not to let them use them...
Which is like saying there is no evidence rabbits explode...but it would be prudent to keep away from them.

I'm in complete agreement. This is an odd feeling.

 

[Wij]

Seralini GM article is retracted by journal for making conclusions it had no right to from limited evidence base:

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/

And the reviewer responds to the conspiracy theory that somehow Monsanto orchestrated the retraction:

http://gmoanswers.com/ask/why-did-m...ployee-richard-goodman-review-all-gmo-related

 

[rynnor]

Seralini GM article is retracted by journal for making conclusions it had no right to from limited evidence base:

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted

They just said his sample size was too small to eliminate normal variability on review. A larger sample size re-run would settle it.

This is unusual though - the original peer reviewers considered it large enough to be worthy of publication. He found unexpectedly high incidences of tumours in the rats exposed to that GM crop.

The re-assessment came due to emails and even allegations of scientific fraud which again are extremely rare - was someone orchestrating a campaign against it - very probably in my opinion. The highly unusual request to view the original data proved no fraud was going on here so there's no suggestion the authors were pursuing some anti GM agenda.

 

[Wij]

They just said his sample size was too small to eliminate normal variability on review. A larger sample size re-run would settle it.

This is unusual though - the original peer reviewers considered it large enough to be worthy of publication. He found unexpectedly high incidences of tumours in the rats exposed to that GM crop.

The re-assessment came due to emails and even allegations of scientific fraud which again are extremely rare - was someone orchestrating a campaign against it - very probably in my opinion. The highly unusual request to view the original data proved no fraud was going on here so there's no suggestion the authors were pursuing some anti GM agenda.

If you actually read a bit deeper you'll find the original author was trying to be a bit of a cock tying up the press to say only what he wanted them to say and trying to generate hysteria. Good grounds to call bullshit imo.

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

Anyway, they should repeat with a much larger sample size and allow it to be peer-reviewed again. That's absolutely the right thing to do but the chances are pretty heavily in favour of it being a negative result.

 

[rynnor]

He puts up a pretty good defence of the paper (published today) here - http://gmoseralini.org/professor-seralini-replies-to-fct-journal-over-study-retraction/

It is interesting that he was challenged on the breed of rat used - (from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_rat )

"

Sprague Dawley rat[edit]


A Sprague Dawley rat
The Sprague Dawley rat is an outbred multipurpose breed of albino rat used extensively in medical research.[10][11][12][13] Its main advantage is its calmness and ease of handling.[14] This breed of rat was first produced by the Sprague Dawley farms (later to become the Sprague Dawley Animal Company) in Madison, Wisconsin in 1925. The average litter size of the Sprague Dawley rat is 11.0. [15]

These rats typically have increased tail to body length ratio compared with Wistar rats."

 

[Wij]

The EFSA minimum requirement for a test for carcinogen is 50 rats per group. This used 10. He also misrepresented his own figures. For instance he failed to make note of the fact that many of the rats fed GM corn plus Roundup lived longer than the control group and hence that them getting tumours was more likely anyway, especially given the strain of rat used.

The shocking thing is that this made it past initial peer review to be published in a mainstream journal.

 

[Wij]

Only 1 proper study of its safety and that was just a short term one

Back to your first post. We hear all the time that there have been no long term studies. This is vastly untrue and needs to be called out.

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/

 

[Wij]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-rat-study-retracted-ugly-legal-battle-looms/

 

[rynnor]

especially given the strain of rat used.

The shocking thing is that this made it past initial peer review to be published in a mainstream journal.

There was nothing unusual or contentious about the strain of rat that was used - you have to be careful reading the propaganda of both sides in this argument - even Monsanto themselves use that strain of rat in their studies showing how safe GM foods are so if this is now deemed contentious a lot of seemingly accepted papers are now contentious.

10 rats does seem too few for safe statistical analysis though even the recommended levels seemed low so maybe there are special reasons why you can get away with a small sample size in this field?

If it really was horribly flawed I don't see how it got near a journal so either all of the reviewers messed up badly or this paper isn't as bad as it's being painted and the withdrawal is due to pressure on the Journal.

 

[rynnor]

The EFSA minimum requirement for a test for carcinogen is 50 rats per group.

Was this experiment designed as a carcinogen test though? I thought it was a more general 'look and see' - what he should do is repeat it with a larger sample if he thinks its a real finding.

 

[Wij]

Read the last link I posted. It was a huge mistake to publish the article.

I didn't say the strain of rat was wrong, it was wrong to conclude that the GM + pesticide group was more prone to cancer given that that group had the longest-lived individuals and that strain is almost guaranteed to get tumours over a long life.

 

[Wij]

Was this experiment designed as a carcinogen test though? I thought it was a more general 'look and see' - what he should do is repeat it with a larger sample if he thinks its a real finding.

It was designed as a toxicity test. Carninogenity is a different test type and requires large samples by nature of the variability of cancer. They had no grounds to draw the conclusions they did.

 

[rynnor]

Back to your first post. We hear all the time that there have been no long term studies. This is vastly untrue and needs to be called out.

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/

I did clarify that point to 'at the time of publication' namely 1999.

 

[rynnor]

It was designed as a toxicity test. Carninogenity is a different test type and requires large samples by nature of the variability of cancer. They had no grounds to draw the conclusions they did.

They had grounds but not statistically robust ones - in such circumstances they should really have checked with a larger sample size before publishing but maybe they feared for public health?

 

[rynnor]

Might I also add that for a man who originally accused me of spouting propaganda from the anti GM camp you do seem to post an inordinately high proportion of dubious pro GM website links - can't we try to keep this a bit more neutral - both sides are mis-representing things in a fairly bitter fight.

 

[Wij]

And he won't repeat with a bigger sample

They had grounds but not statistically robust ones - in such circumstances they should really have checked with a larger sample size before publishing but maybe they feared for public health?

theres no reason to fear for public health based on a statistically insignificant result, especially in light of all the other much bigger research which shows no effect.

You have to wonder what the real motivation was.

 

[Wij]

Might I also add that for a man who originally accused me of spouting propaganda from the anti GM camp you do seem to post an inordinately high proportion of dubious pro GM website links - can't we try to keep this a bit more neutral - both sides are mis-representing things in a fairly bitter fight.

They aren't dubious. They are scientific. I got them by quickly googling because the anti GM lobby is so obviously unscientific.

 

[rynnor]

They aren't dubious. They are scientific. I got them by quickly googling because the anti GM lobby is so obviously unscientific.

Yes but putting websites like GMOanswers in this argument is the equivalent of someone posting greenpeace in a discussion on whaling - its the website of the GM producers.

 

[Wij]

That's just one link where a respected scientist defends himself from accusations of bias.

 

[rynnor]

There's no credible mechanism that would render GM crops dangerous by virtue of them being GM.

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.