Journal withdraws controversial French Monsanto GM study
Thu, Nov 28 17:37 PM EST
* Hundreds of scientists criticised Seralini's paper
* Journal editor asked to see raw data in investigation
* Paper withdrawn due to concerns about sample size
* "No evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation"
By Kate Kelland
LONDON, Nov 28 (Reuters) - The publisher of a controversial and much-criticised study suggesting genetically modified corn caused tumours in rats has withdrawn the paper after a yearlong investigation found it did not meet scientific standards.
Reed Elsevier's Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, which published the study by the French researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini in September 2012, said on Thursday the retraction was because the study's small sample size meant no definitive conclusions could be reached.
"This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article," the journal said in statement.
At the time of its original publication, hundreds of scientists across the world questioned Seralini's research, which said rats fed Monsanto's GM corn suffered tumours and multiple organ failure.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a statement in November 2012 saying the study by Seralini, who was based at France's University of Caen, had serious defects in design and methodology and did not meet acceptable scientific standards.
Within weeks of its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal, more than 700 scientists had signed an online petition calling on Seralini to release all the data from his research.
In its retraction statement, the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal said that in light of these concerns, it too had requested to view the raw data from the study.
Seralini "agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the editor-in-chief," it said.
The journal said that while it received many letters expressing concerns about the validity of the findings, the proper use of animals and even allegations of fraud, its own investigation found "no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data."
"However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected," it said.
Other scientists welcomed the journal's decision to retract the paper, although some said it had come too late.
"The major flaws in this paper make its retraction the right thing to do," said Cathie Martin, a professor at John Innes Centre. "The strain of rats used is highly susceptible to tumours after 18 months with or without GMO (genetically modified organisms) in their diets."
David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, said it was "clear from even a superficial reading that this paper was not fit for publication." In this instance, he said, "The peer review process did not work properly.
"But at least this has now been remedied and the journal has recognised that no conclusions can be drawn from this study, so I suppose it is better late than never," Spiegelhalter said.
There is hope for Old Glory yet... Almost missed this election news, but....
Washington's 522 ballot initiative, which would have required labeling for foods containing genetically modified genes was defeated in Tuesday's election.
Thank goodness.
Find out more about the defeated bill from my previous article here.
Early counts show it was handily defeated 55 to 45.
Congrats to the state of Washington for standing up and rejecting scare tactics!
Posted by thefarmersdaughter at 7:00 AM Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook
David Gorski of ScienceBlogs called the site "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet".[10] Peter Bowditch of the website Ratbags,[11] and Jeff McMahon writing for Forbes commented about the site.[12] Steven Novella of NeuroLogica Blog called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable. If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it – whatever sells the "natural" products he hawks on his site."[13] Individuals who commented about Adams' website include astronomer and blogger Phil Plait,[14] PZ Myers,[15] and Mark Hoofnagle.[16] Brian Dunning listed it as #1 on his "Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites" list.[17] Adams is listed as a "promoter of questionable methods" by Quackwatch.[18] Robert T. Carroll at The Skeptic's Dictionary said, "Natural News is not a very good source for information. If you don't trust me on this, go to Respectful Insolence or any of the other bloggers on ScienceBlogs and do a search for "Natural News" or "Mike Adams" (who is NaturalNews). Hundreds of entries will be found and not one of them will have a good word to say about Mike Adams as a source."[19] After Patrick Swayze's death in 2009, Adams posted an article in which he remarked that Swayze, in dying, "joins many other celebrities who have been recently killed by pharmaceuticals or chemotherapy."[20] Commentators of Adams' article on Patrick Swayze included bloggers such as David Gorski[21] and Phil Plait, the latter of whom called Adams' commentary "obnoxious and loathsome."[22] When Angelina Jolie underwent a double mastectomy in May 2013 because she had the BRCA1 gene, Adams stated that "Countless millions of women carry the BRCA1 gene and never express breast cancer because they lead healthy, anti-cancer lifestyles based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals."[23] Gorski called the article "vile" and noted that Adams had written similarly themed articles about the death of Michael Jackson, Tony Snow, and Tim Russert.[24]
Vandalism and threats[edit] Earth Liberation Front, Greenpeace, and others have vandalized GMO research around the world.[47][48][49][50][51] Within the UK and other European countries, 80 crop trials by academic or governmental research institutes have been destroyed by protesters.[52] In some cases, threats and violence against people or property were also carried out.[52] In 1999, anti-GMO-activists burned the biotech lab of Michigan State University, destroying the results of years of work and property worth $400,000.[53] In 2011, Greenpeace paid reparations when its members broke into the premises of an Australian scientific research organization, CSIRO, and destroyed a genetically modified wheat plot that would have a lower glycemic index and hence benefit people who are diabetic. The sentencing judge accused Greenpeace of cynically using junior members to avoid custodial sentences, while the offenders were given 9 month suspended sentences.[47][54][55] On August 8, 2013 an experimental plot of golden rice being grown in the Philippines was uprooted by protesters.[56][57] Mark Lynas, a famous former anti-GMO activist, reported in Slate that the vandalism was carried out by a group of activists led by the extreme-left KMP, to the dismay of other protesters.[58] Golden rice could prevent vitamin A deficiency which, according to Helen Keller International, kills and blinds hundreds of thousands of children in developing countries every year.[59] Wiki
Gene modification has been extensively studied: there are over 2000 studies, of which 1000 have been independently produced by independent researchers.[65] A 2013 review of 1783 papers on GM crops and food published between 2002 and 2012, found no plausible evidence of dangers from genetic engineering to humans or animals.[66]
2010, the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation reported that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.
In a 2013 review published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Rod A. Herman (Dow AgroSciences) and William D. Price (retired from FDA) argue that transgenesis is less disruptive of composition compared with traditional breeding techniques which routinely involve genetic mutations, deletions, insertions, and rearrangements. The FDA found all of the 148 transgenic events that they evaluated to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, as have the Japanese regulators for 189 submissions including combined-trait products. This equivalence is confirmed by over 80 peer-reviewed publications. Hence, the authors argue, compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for GM crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty.[91] Wiki
Thank you William. Unfortunately, I doubt that any of the GM conspiracy believers here will be convinced. As Mike Royko observed, The internet is an electronic asylum, populated by raving loonies .
There's no conspiracy, Doc. People just want to know what they're eating. Whether or not GMOs are harmful is a secondary issue.
Just like if I was watching my weight, I'd want to know the caloric content of the food I'm buying. Or if I or my child had a nut allergy, I'd want to about the product's nut content. If I had high blood pressure, I might be interested in the amount of sodium in the food. Or if I had scurvy, maybe I'd be interested in knowing how much vitamin C was in it.
The "why" doesn't really matter, even if you regard it as "loony".
You, me, William - anyone who purchases food - has the right to know what they're eating. This is firmly established law in this country and has been for a very long time. In each of the examples I mentioned above, the food packagers/processors are required to provide the nutritional content and other info with regards to food allergies.
If you don't care that your tortillas were made from GM corn, great, have at it, knock yourself out, eat a big steaming pile. If I do care, I will choose another brand of tortilla.
Care or not, the point was, is, and it looks like it will remain for a very long time, that we both have the right to know that the tortillas are made from GM corn.
All 317 million of our citizens can access a computer at a public library and type in "GMO food allergies." We do not need to ever expand our nanny state. We are 17 trillion dollars in debt.
The studies are all available. Don't be so f---in lazy. Rely on yourself.
Explain to me in detail how adding the phrase "contains GMOs" to the ingredients list of any food product would add one penny to the national debt. In fact, explain to me how food labeling of any type has added a single dollar to the nation debt. Please, take me this slippery slope towards Nanny-State totalitarianism. This ought to be interesting ...
People have the right to know what they're eating. Period. Carbohydrates are not inherently harmful yet food companies list the Carb content of their products on their labels. I have yet to feel the crushing weight of the Nanny-State from this supposedly oppressive Carbohydrate labeling activity ...
The studies have nothing to do with food labeling. Quit attempting to make this about whether or not GMOs are harmful. And quit drawing some bullshit imaginary line between food labeling and the national debt.
Oh what did we ever do, how did we ever live, before we stuck a label on every f---in thing?
How would this add to our debt? How about the legions or government hires that attach themselves to every piece of legislation?
Oh, I forgot, king Obama doesn't need legislative approval to mandate his agenda. But people will still get hired, lawyers compensated to litigate at every turn.
LMAO!!! Nice almost-answer! You came close, buddy!!!
C'mon, William you can do better than that!
I'll answer your rhetorical question before I continue begging for your wisdom:
"Oh what did we ever do, how did we ever live, before we stuck a label on every f---in thing?"
The answer is "we didn't".
U.S. life expectancy in 1900 was 46.3 years for males and 48.3 years for females. In 2010 it was 76.2 for males and 81.1 for females.
Now do I attribute that huge difference all to food labels? No, of course not, but being smarter about, health, nutrition, and what may be harmful to our health played a huge factor in it, of which food labeling was certainly was a part.
Now, again, I'm begging you, take my hand and walk me down that slippery-slope to "socialism" where food labeling inevitably leads. Please!!! Apparently I'm too stupid to see the obvious here. Teach me, O Wise One. Lead me from A to B. Impart your great wisdom upon me. Lol ...
Please, again, I insist, do explain to me in detail how adding the phrase "contains GMOs" to a list of ingredients that already exists on every food label would add one cent to the national debt.
While you're at it - and, apparently, since you're so knowledgeable on the subject - please provide me with a dollar amount or even an approximate percentage of the national debt that can be attributed to the oppressive , Marxist act of food labeling. Is it 1%? 5% 50%? C'mon, man, my indoctrinated brain is dying to know!!! Free my mind you Randian guru, you ...
Again I ask for specifics, not vague semi-coherent talking points that contain TEA Party red-meat terms like "nanny-state", "socialism" and the omnipresent, yet eerily elusive "government hires". Please, answer my challenge with something that approaches critical thought and doesn't read like you're just leafing through and picking stuff out of the TEA Party Guerrilla Internet Trolling Handbook to post.
Do people have the right to know what they're ingesting?
If they have the right to know how much vitamin B is in the food they're eating, if they have the right to know that the food they're eating contains peanuts, eggs, or soy, do they also have the right to know if their food contains GMOs?
We label foods and we now have the most obese nation on earth: There was a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States from 1990 through 2010. No state met the nation's Healthy People 2010External Web Site Icon goal to lower obesity prevalence to 15%. Rather, in 2010, there were 12 states with an obesity prevalence of 30%. In 2000, no state had an obesity prevalence of 30% or more.
We've labeled tobacco since the 60's and still have ominous lung cancer rates: More people die from lung cancer than any other type of cancer. In the United States in 2010,* 201,144 people were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 158,248 people died from it.
We've have had sex education for generations: Sixty-eight percent of black women who had given birth in the past year were unmarried, compared to 11 percent of Asian women, 43 percent of hispanics and 26 percent of non-Hispanic whites.
All these labeling and socialist education programs don't seem to be helping now do they pfunky?
Labeling of anything, GMO's or anything, will only lead to more government regulation and litigation.
How about we start teaching people to think in this country instead of putting them all in pretty little labeled boxes. Starting with you pfunky, take a good honest look inwards at your own twisted socialist perspective.
So behind the times my friend. Mexico is now the fattest country on earth. Didn't we just update our labels? And hasn't the first lady made her project child obesity? Hasn't she talked about growing gardens etc. and as all on the right laughed and sneered just maybe something worked we are no longer the fattest country on earth.
Once again you've failed to answer a single question I've asked you, William. I can't decide if you're not very bright or if you're just deliberately just trolling for responses from me. Either way, this'll be my last post in response to you on this subject.
First of all, it's become clear that you really don't know what "socialism" is. Go look it up - just don't c&p the definition in response to me. We know you can read.
Second:
"Labeling of anything, GMO's or anything, will only lead to more government regulation and litigation."
Really? This is another one of your "facts" that seem to have absolutely no basis in reality. Food labeling has been around for decades. DECADES. I challenge you to find a single court in this country at any level whose docket is choked with hundreds of food labeling litigation cases. You can't because it doesn't exist.
My third and final point:
When was I ever arguing that labeling food prevents anything? Obesity, lung cancer, babies born out of wedlock? What the fuck are you talking about? These are your completely unrelated pivots, not mine.
My point is - and always has been going back to the first time a GMO topic was posted on this site - PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE INGESTING. What they do with that info is entirely up to them, but THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW.
The thing is, I think you're smart enough to know this my point, yet you reply with bullshit like "do your own research".
Let's set aside the ridiculously impractical notion that the average grocery shopper has the time to put in 12 hours worth of investigative work before a one hour trip to the Piggly Wiggly for a moment to consider a question (another one you'll ignore, I'm sure):
Where exactly can I find the GMO content of a particular food product if it's not on the label that lists all the other ingredients, nutritional stats, and allergy info? Where? Tell me, please.
Their website? Ok, maybe. But if they're going to post the GMO info on their website, why not just put it on the label that they're ALREADY PUTTING ON EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PACKAGE OF FOOD THEY SELL?
See, here's the big hole in your "do your own research" logic: We (the consumers of food) have no way of knowing if anything's in there unless the manufacturer somewhere, somehow, tells us so. None.
Again, if they're gonna tell me that my SnackieKakes contain Polysorbate 80, why can't the label also say "contains GMOs"?
So for one last time and as plainly as I can, I'll state my point:
I believe that you and I have the right to know what we're eating.
I'll leave you with one simple question, William, then I'm done:
Do you believe that you and I have the right to know what we're eating?
Simple. Only three possible answers here, William: Yes, No, or Don't Know/Don't Care
Even you can't twist that question into something about preventing babies born out of wedlock.
William Martin are you now going to invoke the constitution
"where in our constitution and bill of rights does it say I have the right to know what we are eating"? Really? This shows how out of date the constitution is if you feel that public safety has to be mentioned. Again your hero Thomas Jefferson said, "it is an acceptable document. I fear that advances in technology will require constant changes. This would probably be a case in point for Mr. Jefferson. Your free market hero Alexander Hamilton expanded the scope of the "proper and necessary" clause to include .... well just damn near everything. Everything that needs to be addressed in the 21st century is not going to be in the constitution. As visionary as the founders were they could not have imagined the world in which we live today. The constitution is a framework for a free republican government not the end all to modern problems that the founders could have no way to address. See it for what it is.
I admit to you rick that we in the US do not live in freedom. We are long past that. The progressives and statists have seen to that over the past 100 years.
We in the Tea Party are trying to restore a limited form of government. A government where every time three eco-idiots demand we slap a label on their pet wet dream we don't have to jump like fleas on a dog.
I repeat everything that comes up today is not going to be in the constitution it was merely a frame work to develop a republican form of government by the people. Over the years we the people have elected those that have passed laws rules and regulations. We don't always agree with what they do. The BS of our country is bi partisan. live with it. In reality William have the rules and regulations of this country over the years of your life drastically changed anything about your life? Be realistic. For me the answer is not really.
State and Federal DEP/EPA regulations have taken dozens of acres and potential wealth away from me. I understand some of the reasoning but many regulations just perpetuate the regulators.
Building codes here in Jersey are a joke. As builders we are much like the doctors, using unnecessary product (performing unneeded tests) for far flung reasons.
I find it hard to believe that the right would favor GMOs. Is it much different really the DNA and stem cell research that you so abhor? Oh that's right the fetuses, the illiterati of FOX has you believing you need one for stem cells even infant ones. Did you know that a three celled organism in a petri dish is all it takes to harvest infant stem cells. Now you are enlightened. I don't want to eat GM food. And I do want to know when I do. Back in the Buckeye State when I had the space we grew all our own stuff. You know what you got that way. We are gradually increasing here but we aren't going to have the room to grow everything we need. We do of course our apples and get enough jelly and apple butter for a year, we do spices that last all year. this year we started a small plot with tomatoes, romas, peppers, carrots and radishes. It was good and fresh veggies but we need more space. But then with GMO's I could produce more in a small space and not worry about disease etc. No thanks.
Journal withdraws controversial French Monsanto GM study
ReplyDeleteThu, Nov 28 17:37 PM EST
* Hundreds of scientists criticised Seralini's paper
* Journal editor asked to see raw data in investigation
* Paper withdrawn due to concerns about sample size
* "No evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation"
By Kate Kelland
LONDON, Nov 28 (Reuters) - The publisher of a controversial
and much-criticised study suggesting genetically modified corn
caused tumours in rats has withdrawn the paper after a yearlong
investigation found it did not meet scientific standards.
Reed Elsevier's Food and Chemical Toxicology
journal, which published the study by the French researcher
Gilles-Eric Seralini in September 2012, said on Thursday the
retraction was because the study's small sample size meant no
definitive conclusions could be reached.
"This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming
analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along
with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article,"
the journal said in statement.
At the time of its original publication, hundreds of
scientists across the world questioned Seralini's research,
which said rats fed Monsanto's GM corn suffered tumours
and multiple organ failure.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a statement
in November 2012 saying the study by Seralini, who was based at
France's University of Caen, had serious defects in design and
methodology and did not meet acceptable scientific standards.
Within weeks of its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal,
more than 700 scientists had signed an online petition calling
on Seralini to release all the data from his research.
In its retraction statement, the Food and Chemical
Toxicology journal said that in light of these concerns, it too
had requested to view the raw data from the study.
Seralini "agreed and supplied all material that was
requested by the editor-in-chief," it said.
The journal said that while it received many letters
expressing concerns about the validity of the findings, the
proper use of animals and even allegations of fraud, its own
investigation found "no evidence of fraud or intentional
misrepresentation of the data."
"However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding
both the number of animals in each study group and the
particular strain selected," it said.
Other scientists welcomed the journal's decision to retract
the paper, although some said it had come too late.
"The major flaws in this paper make its retraction the right
thing to do," said Cathie Martin, a professor at John Innes
Centre. "The strain of rats used is highly susceptible to
tumours after 18 months with or without GMO (genetically
modified organisms) in their diets."
David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the Public Understanding
of Risk at the University of Cambridge, said it was "clear from
even a superficial reading that this paper was not fit for
publication." In this instance, he said, "The peer review
process did not work properly.
"But at least this has now been remedied and the journal has
recognised that no conclusions can be drawn from this study, so
I suppose it is better late than never," Spiegelhalter said.
Russian Scientists Create Bad Biotech Studies, Too
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/11/russian-scientists-create-bad-biotech.html
Washington Says "No" To GMO Labels
ReplyDeleteThere is hope for Old Glory yet...
Almost missed this election news, but....
Washington's 522 ballot initiative, which would have required labeling for foods containing genetically modified genes was defeated in Tuesday's election.
Thank goodness.
Find out more about the defeated bill from my previous article here.
Early counts show it was handily defeated 55 to 45.
Congrats to the state of Washington for standing up and rejecting scare tactics!
Posted by thefarmersdaughter at 7:00 AM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Labels: ballot measures, GMO, labels, politics, update
Natural News propagandist Mike Adams.
ReplyDeleteDavid Gorski of ScienceBlogs called the site "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet".[10] Peter Bowditch of the website Ratbags,[11] and Jeff McMahon writing for Forbes commented about the site.[12] Steven Novella of NeuroLogica Blog called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable. If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it – whatever sells the "natural" products he hawks on his site."[13]
Individuals who commented about Adams' website include astronomer and blogger Phil Plait,[14] PZ Myers,[15] and Mark Hoofnagle.[16] Brian Dunning listed it as #1 on his "Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites" list.[17] Adams is listed as a "promoter of questionable methods" by Quackwatch.[18] Robert T. Carroll at The Skeptic's Dictionary said, "Natural News is not a very good source for information. If you don't trust me on this, go to Respectful Insolence or any of the other bloggers on ScienceBlogs and do a search for "Natural News" or "Mike Adams" (who is NaturalNews). Hundreds of entries will be found and not one of them will have a good word to say about Mike Adams as a source."[19]
After Patrick Swayze's death in 2009, Adams posted an article in which he remarked that Swayze, in dying, "joins many other celebrities who have been recently killed by pharmaceuticals or chemotherapy."[20] Commentators of Adams' article on Patrick Swayze included bloggers such as David Gorski[21] and Phil Plait, the latter of whom called Adams' commentary "obnoxious and loathsome."[22] When Angelina Jolie underwent a double mastectomy in May 2013 because she had the BRCA1 gene, Adams stated that "Countless millions of women carry the BRCA1 gene and never express breast cancer because they lead healthy, anti-cancer lifestyles based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals."[23] Gorski called the article "vile" and noted that Adams had written similarly themed articles about the death of Michael Jackson, Tony Snow, and Tim Russert.[24]
Vandalism and threats[edit]
ReplyDeleteEarth Liberation Front, Greenpeace, and others have vandalized GMO research around the world.[47][48][49][50][51] Within the UK and other European countries, 80 crop trials by academic or governmental research institutes have been destroyed by protesters.[52] In some cases, threats and violence against people or property were also carried out.[52] In 1999, anti-GMO-activists burned the biotech lab of Michigan State University, destroying the results of years of work and property worth $400,000.[53]
In 2011, Greenpeace paid reparations when its members broke into the premises of an Australian scientific research organization, CSIRO, and destroyed a genetically modified wheat plot that would have a lower glycemic index and hence benefit people who are diabetic. The sentencing judge accused Greenpeace of cynically using junior members to avoid custodial sentences, while the offenders were given 9 month suspended sentences.[47][54][55]
On August 8, 2013 an experimental plot of golden rice being grown in the Philippines was uprooted by protesters.[56][57] Mark Lynas, a famous former anti-GMO activist, reported in Slate that the vandalism was carried out by a group of activists led by the extreme-left KMP, to the dismay of other protesters.[58] Golden rice could prevent vitamin A deficiency which, according to Helen Keller International, kills and blinds hundreds of thousands of children in developing countries every year.[59]
Wiki
Gene modification has been extensively studied: there are over 2000 studies, of which 1000 have been independently produced by independent researchers.[65] A 2013 review of 1783 papers on GM crops and food published between 2002 and 2012, found no plausible evidence of dangers from genetic engineering to humans or animals.[66]
ReplyDelete2010, the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation reported that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.
In a 2013 review published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Rod A. Herman (Dow AgroSciences) and William D. Price (retired from FDA) argue that transgenesis is less disruptive of composition compared with traditional breeding techniques which routinely involve genetic mutations, deletions, insertions, and rearrangements. The FDA found all of the 148 transgenic events that they evaluated to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, as have the Japanese regulators for 189 submissions including combined-trait products. This equivalence is confirmed by over 80 peer-reviewed publications. Hence, the authors argue, compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for GM crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty.[91]
Wiki
Thank you William. Unfortunately, I doubt that any of the GM conspiracy believers here will be convinced. As Mike Royko observed, The internet is an electronic asylum, populated by raving loonies .
ReplyDeleteThere's no conspiracy, Doc. People just want to know what they're eating. Whether or not GMOs are harmful is a secondary issue.
DeleteJust like if I was watching my weight, I'd want to know the caloric content of the food I'm buying. Or if I or my child had a nut allergy, I'd want to about the product's nut content. If I had high blood pressure, I might be interested in the amount of sodium in the food. Or if I had scurvy, maybe I'd be interested in knowing how much vitamin C was in it.
The "why" doesn't really matter, even if you regard it as "loony".
You, me, William - anyone who purchases food - has the right to know what they're eating. This is firmly established law in this country and has been for a very long time. In each of the examples I mentioned above, the food packagers/processors are required to provide the nutritional content and other info with regards to food allergies.
If you don't care that your tortillas were made from GM corn, great, have at it, knock yourself out, eat a big steaming pile. If I do care, I will choose another brand of tortilla.
Care or not, the point was, is, and it looks like it will remain for a very long time, that we both have the right to know that the tortillas are made from GM corn.
Why is that such a big deal?
All 317 million of our citizens can access a computer at a public library and type in "GMO food allergies." We do not need to ever expand our nanny state. We are 17 trillion dollars in debt.
DeleteThe studies are all available. Don't be so f---in lazy. Rely on yourself.
Explain to me in detail how adding the phrase "contains GMOs" to the ingredients list of any food product would add one penny to the national debt. In fact, explain to me how food labeling of any type has added a single dollar to the nation debt. Please, take me this slippery slope towards Nanny-State totalitarianism. This ought to be interesting ...
DeletePeople have the right to know what they're eating. Period. Carbohydrates are not inherently harmful yet food companies list the Carb content of their products on their labels. I have yet to feel the crushing weight of the Nanny-State from this supposedly oppressive Carbohydrate labeling activity ...
The studies have nothing to do with food labeling. Quit attempting to make this about whether or not GMOs are harmful. And quit drawing some bullshit imaginary line between food labeling and the national debt.
Don't be so f--in intellectually lazy.
Oh what did we ever do, how did we ever live, before we stuck a label on every f---in thing?
DeleteHow would this add to our debt? How about the legions or government hires that attach themselves to every piece of legislation?
Oh, I forgot, king Obama doesn't need legislative approval to mandate his agenda. But people will still get hired, lawyers compensated to litigate at every turn.
Creeping f---in socialism pfunky!
LMAO!!! Nice almost-answer! You came close, buddy!!!
DeleteC'mon, William you can do better than that!
I'll answer your rhetorical question before I continue begging for your wisdom:
"Oh what did we ever do, how did we ever live, before we stuck a label on every f---in thing?"
The answer is "we didn't".
U.S. life expectancy in 1900 was 46.3 years for males and 48.3 years for females. In 2010 it was 76.2 for males and 81.1 for females.
Now do I attribute that huge difference all to food labels? No, of course not, but being smarter about, health, nutrition, and what may be harmful to our health played a huge factor in it, of which food labeling was certainly was a part.
Now, again, I'm begging you, take my hand and walk me down that slippery-slope to "socialism" where food labeling inevitably leads. Please!!! Apparently I'm too stupid to see the obvious here. Teach me, O Wise One. Lead me from A to B. Impart your great wisdom upon me. Lol ...
Please, again, I insist, do explain to me in detail how adding the phrase "contains GMOs" to a list of ingredients that already exists on every food label would add one cent to the national debt.
While you're at it - and, apparently, since you're so knowledgeable on the subject - please provide me with a dollar amount or even an approximate percentage of the national debt that can be attributed to the oppressive , Marxist act of food labeling. Is it 1%? 5% 50%? C'mon, man, my indoctrinated brain is dying to know!!! Free my mind you Randian guru, you ...
Again I ask for specifics, not vague semi-coherent talking points that contain TEA Party red-meat terms like "nanny-state", "socialism" and the omnipresent, yet eerily elusive "government hires". Please, answer my challenge with something that approaches critical thought and doesn't read like you're just leafing through and picking stuff out of the TEA Party Guerrilla Internet Trolling Handbook to post.
Do people have the right to know what they're ingesting?
If they have the right to know how much vitamin B is in the food they're eating, if they have the right to know that the food they're eating contains peanuts, eggs, or soy, do they also have the right to know if their food contains GMOs?
Why or why not?
Creeping f--in talking points William!
We label foods and we now have the most obese nation on earth:
DeleteThere was a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States from 1990 through 2010.
No state met the nation's Healthy People 2010External Web Site Icon goal to lower obesity prevalence to 15%. Rather, in 2010, there were 12 states with an obesity prevalence of 30%. In 2000, no state had an obesity prevalence of 30% or more.
We've labeled tobacco since the 60's and still have ominous lung cancer rates:
More people die from lung cancer than any other type of cancer. In the United States in 2010,* 201,144 people were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 158,248 people died from it.
We've have had sex education for generations:
Sixty-eight percent of black women who had given birth in the past year were unmarried, compared to 11 percent of Asian women, 43 percent of hispanics and 26 percent of non-Hispanic whites.
All these labeling and socialist education programs don't seem to be helping now do they pfunky?
Labeling of anything, GMO's or anything, will only lead to more government regulation and litigation.
How about we start teaching people to think in this country instead of putting them all in pretty little labeled boxes. Starting with you pfunky, take a good honest look inwards at your own twisted socialist perspective.
1773--2009 Proud of my Tea Party connections.
So behind the times my friend. Mexico is now the fattest country on earth. Didn't we just update our labels? And hasn't the first lady made her project child obesity? Hasn't she talked about growing gardens etc. and as all on the right laughed and sneered just maybe something worked we are no longer the fattest country on earth.
Deletesmh ...
DeleteOnce again you've failed to answer a single question I've asked you, William. I can't decide if you're not very bright or if you're just deliberately just trolling for responses from me. Either way, this'll be my last post in response to you on this subject.
First of all, it's become clear that you really don't know what "socialism" is. Go look it up - just don't c&p the definition in response to me. We know you can read.
Second:
"Labeling of anything, GMO's or anything, will only lead to more government regulation and litigation."
Really? This is another one of your "facts" that seem to have absolutely no basis in reality. Food labeling has been around for decades. DECADES. I challenge you to find a single court in this country at any level whose docket is choked with hundreds of food labeling litigation cases. You can't because it doesn't exist.
My third and final point:
When was I ever arguing that labeling food prevents anything? Obesity, lung cancer, babies born out of wedlock? What the fuck are you talking about? These are your completely unrelated pivots, not mine.
My point is - and always has been going back to the first time a GMO topic was posted on this site - PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE INGESTING. What they do with that info is entirely up to them, but THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW.
The thing is, I think you're smart enough to know this my point, yet you reply with bullshit like "do your own research".
Let's set aside the ridiculously impractical notion that the average grocery shopper has the time to put in 12 hours worth of investigative work before a one hour trip to the Piggly Wiggly for a moment to consider a question (another one you'll ignore, I'm sure):
Where exactly can I find the GMO content of a particular food product if it's not on the label that lists all the other ingredients, nutritional stats, and allergy info? Where? Tell me, please.
Their website? Ok, maybe. But if they're going to post the GMO info on their website, why not just put it on the label that they're ALREADY PUTTING ON EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PACKAGE OF FOOD THEY SELL?
See, here's the big hole in your "do your own research" logic: We (the consumers of food) have no way of knowing if anything's in there unless the manufacturer somewhere, somehow, tells us so. None.
Again, if they're gonna tell me that my SnackieKakes contain Polysorbate 80, why can't the label also say "contains GMOs"?
So for one last time and as plainly as I can, I'll state my point:
I believe that you and I have the right to know what we're eating.
I'll leave you with one simple question, William, then I'm done:
Do you believe that you and I have the right to know what we're eating?
Simple. Only three possible answers here, William: Yes, No, or Don't Know/Don't Care
Even you can't twist that question into something about preventing babies born out of wedlock.
Ciao
Where in our constitution and bill of rights does it state that you and I have the right to know what we are eating?
DeleteSimple enough for you?
FDA HHS NIH have over 110,000 people employed. I'm sure very few are involved in regulation and litigation.
DeleteQuite a tell. You lefty's continue to rail on about Fox, talk radio, and mostly us Tea baggers.
DeleteWe must scare the hell out of you. As unintellectual as we are.
I admit, I did not attend an Ivy league institute of higher learning. Probably over three hundred million others citizens haven't either.
DeleteThat disqualifies us from serving as president, or on the supreme court.
Then again we proles don't deserve it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWilliam Martin are you now going to invoke the constitution
Delete"where in our constitution and bill of rights does it say I have the right to know what we are eating"? Really? This shows how out of date the constitution is if you feel that public safety has to be mentioned.
Again your hero Thomas Jefferson said, "it is an acceptable document. I fear that advances in technology will require constant changes. This would probably be a case in point for Mr. Jefferson. Your free market hero Alexander Hamilton expanded the scope of the "proper and necessary" clause to include .... well just damn near everything.
Everything that needs to be addressed in the 21st century is not going to be in the constitution. As visionary as the founders were they could not have imagined the world in which we live today. The constitution is a framework for a free republican government not the end all to modern problems that the founders could have no way to address. See it for what it is.
I admit to you rick that we in the US do not live in freedom. We are long past that. The progressives and statists have seen to that over the past 100 years.
DeleteWe in the Tea Party are trying to restore a limited form of government. A government where every time three eco-idiots demand we slap a label on their pet wet dream we don't have to jump like fleas on a dog.
1773-2009
I repeat everything that comes up today is not going to be in the constitution it was merely a frame work to develop a republican form of government by the people. Over the years we the people have elected those that have passed laws rules and regulations. We don't always agree with what they do. The BS of our country is bi partisan. live with it.
DeleteIn reality William have the rules and regulations of this country over the years of your life drastically changed anything about your life? Be realistic. For me the answer is not really.
State and Federal DEP/EPA regulations have taken dozens of acres and potential wealth away from me. I understand some of the reasoning but many regulations just perpetuate the regulators.
DeleteBuilding codes here in Jersey are a joke. As builders we are much like the doctors, using unnecessary product (performing unneeded tests) for far flung reasons.
I find it hard to believe that the right would favor GMOs. Is it much different really the DNA and stem cell research that you so abhor? Oh that's right the fetuses, the illiterati of FOX has you believing you need one for stem cells even infant ones. Did you know that a three celled organism in a petri dish is all it takes to harvest infant stem cells. Now you are enlightened.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to eat GM food. And I do want to know when I do. Back in the Buckeye State when I had the space we grew all our own stuff. You know what you got that way. We are gradually increasing here but we aren't going to have the room to grow everything we need. We do of course our apples and get enough jelly and apple butter for a year, we do spices that last all year. this year we started a small plot with tomatoes, romas, peppers, carrots and radishes. It was good and fresh veggies but we need more space. But then with GMO's I could produce more in a small space and not worry about disease etc. No thanks.
It's a simple formula, if the left wants it, it must be denied or freedom dies.
Delete