Jump to content

- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#136 mav1234


    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,135
  • Reputation: 2,320

Posted 04 August 2014 - 04:41 PM

I'm not going to argue the validity of any scientific studies, as I am not a scientist myself and this is not a black and white issue. I never said and don't believe all GMO food is bad and evil, yet, as I already mentioned I think consumers should be allowed to decide if they want to eat it or not and thus support GMO labeling.

Although I just pulled up that one article, my position that there are studies showing health problems from some of the GMO is based on a meeting of American Cancers Society a few months ago which I attended with my dad who is a Cardiologist and Internal Medicine doctor and member and part time speaker and cancer survivor. If you like, I can find out exactly which studies they presented and discused as I believe the Physicians there would be much better authorities on validity of studies than me or you. At the end of the day, the consensus among most of scientific community is that the time that has passed since GMO food has been out is not long enough to know what long term effects may be. I see you discounting the studies that have shown issues with animals tested, but keep in mind, animal testing is a standard for predicting human reactions. If I remember correctly, different animals are used to test different organs, for instance I believe pigs are used for digestive system related experiments. Also animals are used for their shorter life cycle because possible long term effects show up faster in them.

At the end of the day, The issue is not an all GMO is bad black/white type issue, but more of a grey issue and it seems the roundup ready crops are the ones that raise the biggest immediate concerns and there are studies already documenting issues.


Please do find the articles you mentioned from the meeting you attended as I am legitimately curious what the findings were.  Alternatively, if you give me the meeting name/year I can just look up the abstracts and follow up that way.


The consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of GMOs being safe, but I'm curious about the cancer meeting you've attended.  I've talked to many ag researchers on the subject, and I've read quite a bit of the literature, and I've found no evidence of bt crops/the process being unsafe.


I don't discount animal model studies at all - I discount the 2 studies your link quoted because 1 has been retracted from the article because the authors basically faked their results and the second used inadequate and terrible statistical methods and, according to researchers that actually study pig inflammation, used poor categorizing.  They also published specific images (which you can see in this thread) that are incredibly bias and misleading because they didn't show the healthy pigs that also had bad inflammation. My problem is with THOSE studies, not with animal studies.  


If you want to say there may be issues with pesticide X or Y, or that maybe growth hormones may be a problem, sure, fine, go for it.  But to wholesale condemn GMO foods - and then link to an article that cites retracted and discredited scientific studies - is exactly the problem with this argument.  I do not have a problem with GMO labeling but the anti-GMO crowd has done a good job at whipping up hysteria. 


Frankly, I'd like to take labeling a step further.  Why not label everything that isn't exactly as it occurs in nature?  You'd be left with, what, blueberries?  Heh.

#137 mav1234


    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,135
  • Reputation: 2,320

Posted 04 August 2014 - 04:49 PM

Also, the study that was retracted was not because it was "so prone to errors" it was argued to have used too small a sample size. Other than claiming the sample size was too small, there was no other mentions of "errors". Here is from the retraction you even posted link to.

Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief 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. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague–Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.

Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. The peer review process is not perfect, but it does work. The journal is committed to getting the peer-review process right, and at times, expediency might be sacrificed for being as thorough as possible. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers. Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peer-review. The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog.

I guess it comes down to there are a lot of studies out there showing all these animals dying, getting cancer, getting sterile, etc when they eat all this extra glyphosate in the roundup ready GMO food, I think I'll take my food without glyphosate for now and be safe.


The study had a ton of problems.  It wasn't just that they used too small a sample size, so they couldn't draw conclusions.  This alone is a problem, because inconclusive data that is not significant typically means you have to go back to the null, which is that there is no difference between GMO and non GMO.



Anyway the small sample size is a problem, but they also basically used unconventional statistical methods to get results.  They also failed to report tons of aspects of the study, so that it couldn't possibly be reproduced. It was very confusing to follow and it was unclear what they actually found, if anything.  They used strains or rats vulnerable to tumors, etc...


The study was critically flawed in design, analysis, and reporting.  Not only did they design a study with too few organisms to test what they were after, they failed to properly report whatever the hell they even did, and then on top of that they threw a bunch of grotesque images into the study to try to get an emotional reaction.  They didn't include images of control mice at all.  


Basically tons of scientific academies condemned the study.  To claim that it was merely too small sample size and just a minor thing is to downplay what actually happened back then.  The study was completely demolished in the scientific community, and justifiably so.

Edited by mav1234, 04 August 2014 - 04:54 PM.



    Dey Hate Us Because They Aint Us!

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,811
  • Reputation: 2,238
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 04 August 2014 - 06:38 PM

I love Grapples

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

#139 Kurb


    I hit it.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,817
  • Reputation: 4,561
  • LocationILM

Posted 04 August 2014 - 06:48 PM

Centuries? You sure about that?

Selective seeding and cross pollination has been common for a long time. This is simple genetic manipulation.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users