1240 Scientists Demand Seralini GMO Study be Republished

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The petition is here:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier.php
The list of signatures:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier_signatures.php#signed

random sample:
Not exactly domain experts, but you could say the claim is factually true, just not very meaningful. You could find 1,000 similarly qualified people to agree with any similar contentious issue. That's how you can find Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It's an appeal to false authority.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
 

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
The petition is here:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier.php
The list of signatures:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier_signatures.php#signed

random sample:
Not exactly domain experts, but you could say the claim is factually true, just not very meaningful. You could find 1,000 similarly qualified people to agree with any similar contentious issue. That's how you can find Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It's an appeal to false authority.
Citing the above as an appeal to authority is enough to question the validity without adding the term false. Having said that, pointing out that the petition is being used in a fallacious manner to promulgate the idea that GMOs might be dangerous doesn't do anything to addressing the real question: Are crops grown using GMO technology dangerous to our health? I know you and most here realize the main purpose of GMO corn and soy, but the general public does not. That is the fact that the crops have been genetically modified to withstand the spraying of certain herbicides, specifically the one sold in the retail market as "Roundup". The main ingredient is glyphosate. These crops are sprayed with Roundup to kill all of the weeds in the field. The weeds die, but the GMO crops suffer no damage from the chemical spray. For me, I do not need a "study" to tell me that the long term ingestion of these crops may dangerous to one's health, for the following reasons:
1. We know that plants absorb chemicals from the surrounding soil. This is how plants obtain nutrients from the soil. Unfortunately, plants do not discriminate. They absorb ANY AND ALL chemicals from soil.
2. According to the manufacturers label, the product should be kept away from small children and should NOT be ingested.
3. Therefore, we know that;
a. plants absorb chemicals in the soil
b. GMO plants absorb a certain amount of the Roundup that is sprayed.
c. When we eat or ingest these plants themselves or products made with these plants, we are ingesting small amounts of Roundup.
4. The question becomes, are the levels of glyphosate that we consume enough to cause health issues? I'm not sure we really know. There is conflicting evidence, but for me, PERSONALLY, based strictly on what I have argued above, I choose NOT to eat foods that contain GMO crops specifically because I do not want to ingest glyphosate; even in trace amounts.

Although the information about these crops being modified to resist Roundup is widely available, a vast majority of the public has no clue. When I asked 10 people what they thought the main purpose of genetically modifying corn and soy was, most replied it was to obtain higher yields or make the plants resistant to disease. Only one person mentioned the connection to herbicides.

Is this due to some conspiratorial activity on the part of Monsanto? Nope. There IS evidence that the company has engaged in conspiratorial activity, but that is another issue. The reason most people don't have any idea about the issue of herbicides being sprayed on their food is an issue of sheer laziness. People do not take the time to educate themselves on the food they eat.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
All plants absorb glysophate - not just GMO ones - that is how it kills them!!

There have been many studies of glysophate - eg see this info sheet

Unless you are drinking it straight there is no great health concern at all - and drinking it straight is not QUITE the same as getting it through eating plants that have absorbed it!!
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Plants also absorb Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium and other chemicals...again, if YOU (or I) ate these directly, they would indeed be harmful, if not fatal, depending on dosage.

(EDIT) THIS is why ALL life is based on chemistry, and chemical reactions....
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
List of "Nutrition Experts." False claims about Monsanto... typical activist rants. "How dare people not know about this!!!" I tend to put the GMO debate along the same lines as the Chemtrail debate. Both are nonsense.
 

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
List of "Nutrition Experts." False claims about Monsanto... typical activist rants. "How dare people not know about this!!!" I tend to put the GMO debate along the same lines as the Chemtrail debate. Both are nonsense.
Hmm. Maybe. I'll still be eating the vegetables I grow or ones that are grown by sources I trust. I avoid processed foods. That make me a crazy conspiracy nut? If so, so be it. All I know is that I feel better than I have in years since I quit eating most of the crap lining our grocery store shelves. The truth is, we really don't know the cumulative effect of the countless manufactured chemicals on our bodies. Science has differing opinions. So I generally try and eat only things I could have found on a farm 100 years ago. And I really don't try and convince anyone else to eat the way that I do unless they are a client and have asked for my help with their diet.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Hmm. Maybe. I'll still be eating the vegetables I grow or ones that are grown by sources I trust. I avoid processed foods. That make me a crazy conspiracy nut? If so, so be it. All I know is that I feel better than I have in years since I quit eating most of the crap lining our grocery store shelves. The truth is, we really don't know the cumulative effect of the countless manufactured chemicals on our bodies. Science has differing opinions. So I generally try and eat only things I could have found on a farm 100 years ago. And I really don't try and convince anyone else to eat the way that I do unless they are a client and have asked for my help with their diet.
Question: What is glyophosphate metabolized into by the plant? Most of the "harmful" chemicals plants use to thrive are turned into sugars and other chemicals our bodies need while some is left over for waste... just like our bodies behave. Do you (or does anyone) know what these chemicals are turned into when the "digests" its food?
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Hmm. Maybe. I'll still be eating the vegetables I grow or ones that are grown by sources I trust. I avoid processed foods. That make me a crazy conspiracy nut? If so, so be it. All I know is that I feel better than I have in years since I quit eating most of the crap lining our grocery store shelves. The truth is, we really don't know the cumulative effect of the countless manufactured chemicals on our bodies. Science has differing opinions. So I generally try and eat only things I could have found on a farm 100 years ago. And I really don't try and convince anyone else to eat the way that I do unless they are a client and have asked for my help with their diet.
So you'd rather trust supplements made by quacks than FDA approved food sold by well known companies like Dole, Kraft, General Mills, and Coca Cola? I have a hard time believing that you don't ingest anything that these and other companies make into your body.

So you go out and kill the animal? Make your own milk? Churn your own butter? Make your own sodas? Brew your own alcoholic beverages? Even the Amish can't get away with all that. Just because you grow some fruits and veggies doesn't mean you are rebelling against the man.
 
Organic food farmers also use man made pesticides to get rid of pests. GMOs aren't the only type of crop being sprayed with chemicals.

I went the no-processed food route for a while and many of the benefits I experienced were pure placebo. Feeling like I was taking control of my health and life made me feel like I was doing something great, so I felt better for a while. The human body is resilient against many of the trace amounts of chemicals we have in all sorts of foods and there are strict controls on the types of chemicals that can be put into our foods. If anything in food makes people sick, companies lose a lot of profit, so it is in their best interest to make sure their food is safe for consumption. Safe doesn't necessarily mean free of chemicals, though. But small amounts of chemicals are easily handled and excreted by the human body.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/02/scientific-context.html

Though, I respect anyone's decision to pursue any type of diet they wish for any reason.
 

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
Excellent point. The truth is that much of what we once thought about food science had been shown to be wrong according to modern science. An example of this is the
So you'd rather trust supplements made by quacks than FDA approved food sold by well known companies like Dole, Kraft, General Mills, and Coca Cola? I have a hard time believing that you don't ingest anything that these and other companies make into your body.

So you go out and kill the animal? Make your own milk? Churn your own butter? Make your own sodas? Brew your own alcoholic beverages? Even the Amish can't get away with all that. Just because you grow some fruits and veggies doesn't mean you are rebelling against the man.
Lol. It's amusing to be on a website supposedly populated by people who use "critical thinking" and "sound argument" to make their point and receive replies that are completely exagerated, fallacious, inaccurate, and vitriolic. So, GOP. YOU quoted me. Where in my quote did I say that I, "don't ingest anything that these and other companies make into your body"? What I said is that I avoid processed foods and that attempt to eat only the type of foods that were found on a farm 100 years ago. It's no protest. I'm not trying to rebel against the "man" as you put it lol. But I will answer your questions; specifically.
1. I rarely use butter for personal consumption, but when I do I use European, organic butter primarily for it's superior flavor and higher flash point; but I'm a Chef who has learned to appreciate the subtle differences between good butter and the butters widely available in American grocery stores. For fats I use a LOT of olive oil and coconut oil which I believe are much healthier than many of the polyunsaturated fats on grocery shelves. Of course, this is my opinion (backed up by science)
2. I NEVER drink "sodas". I assume you mean like Coke Cola? No. Never. Do you need evidence as to the detrimental effects of sodas? Be glad to supply for you. I NEVER eat fast food.
3. I don't drink.
4. I try and get about 75% of my daily calories from fresh vegetables. The rest I get from proteins. I try and buy wild fish, grass fed beef, and free range chicken whenever possible. Even if one doesn't believe that eating a free range chicken is healthier, there is NO question that it TASTES BETTER! I buy from local farmers; usually, NOT always! I personally know the farmers I buy from. I started buying food from local farmers 20 years ago for my restaurant. Many of them are Amish. I buy ALL of my eggs and chicken from a local Amish farmer who has become a close friend. Besides some butter and some occasional heavy cream in my coffee, I don't eat dairy products.

I do buy vegetables from the grocery store sometimes. As a Chef and someone who has taught over 3,000 cooking classes, I am well versed in the differences between "organic", "all natural", etc. I am completely aware of all the issues with the term "organic" most of which were caused by over zealous regulations that are nearly impossible to meet.

You might find it "hard to believe" that I do these things, but that's your problem, not mine. I'm not perfect. But before I began this change, I felt like shit. I was 75 lbs heavier than I am now. I had gout frequently, I was pre-diabetic, my blood sugar was extremely high, I had elevated blood pressure as well as a myriad of aches, pains, etc. Those health issues are ALL gone. MAYBE my lifestyle changes are simply placebo. If so, so what? They are REAL, nonetheless. However, modern science certainly supports my assertion that eating a diet of fresh vegetables and proteins grown with minimal use of chemicals is healthier than eating processed foods high in sugar and carbs. Don't believe it? Knock yourselves out. I'm not promoting this, again, unless it is a client. I do train people in healthy eating/cooking. Most of my clients were people who knew me when I was fat, sick, and tired. I certainly have sympathy for anyone who wants to change their lifestyle for the better, but to each his own.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I generally try and eat only things I could have found on a farm 100 years ago.
Aiming for the 52 year life expectancy (of 1914), eh? :p http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

jk...it's no news that veggies are generally best, and--though I'm on the side of science--I would've liked to have seen
Prop 37 pass here in Cali a year and a half ago (just so consumers could be more informed re. GMO options).
Congrats on the 75 lbs, but--just out of curiosity--since you always knew a vegetable-heavy diet was better for you, what made you change?
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Excellent point. The truth is that much of what we once thought about food science had been shown to be wrong according to modern science. An example of this is the


Lol. It's amusing to be on a website supposedly populated by people who use "critical thinking" and "sound argument" to make their point and receive replies that are completely exagerated, fallacious, inaccurate, and vitriolic. So, GOP. YOU quoted me. Where in my quote did I say that I, "don't ingest anything that these and other companies make into your body"? What I said is that I avoid processed foods and that attempt to eat only the type of foods that were found on a farm 100 years ago. It's no protest. I'm not trying to rebel against the "man" as you put it lol. But I will answer your questions; specifically.
1. I rarely use butter for personal consumption, but when I do I use European, organic butter primarily for it's superior flavor and higher flash point; but I'm a Chef who has learned to appreciate the subtle differences between good butter and the butters widely available in American grocery stores. For fats I use a LOT of olive oil and coconut oil which I believe are much healthier than many of the polyunsaturated fats on grocery shelves. Of course, this is my opinion (backed up by science)
2. I NEVER drink "sodas". I assume you mean like Coke Cola? No. Never. Do you need evidence as to the detrimental effects of sodas? Be glad to supply for you. I NEVER eat fast food.
3. I don't drink.
4. I try and get about 75% of my daily calories from fresh vegetables. The rest I get from proteins. I try and buy wild fish, grass fed beef, and free range chicken whenever possible. Even if one doesn't believe that eating a free range chicken is healthier, there is NO question that it TASTES BETTER! I buy from local farmers; usually, NOT always! I personally know the farmers I buy from. I started buying food from local farmers 20 years ago for my restaurant. Many of them are Amish. I buy ALL of my eggs and chicken from a local Amish farmer who has become a close friend. Besides some butter and some occasional heavy cream in my coffee, I don't eat dairy products.

I do buy vegetables from the grocery store sometimes. As a Chef and someone who has taught over 3,000 cooking classes, I am well versed in the differences between "organic", "all natural", etc. I am completely aware of all the issues with the term "organic" most of which were caused by over zealous regulations that are nearly impossible to meet.

You might find it "hard to believe" that I do these things, but that's your problem, not mine. I'm not perfect. But before I began this change, I felt like shit. I was 75 lbs heavier than I am now. I had gout frequently, I was pre-diabetic, my blood sugar was extremely high, I had elevated blood pressure as well as a myriad of aches, pains, etc. Those health issues are ALL gone. MAYBE my lifestyle changes are simply placebo. If so, so what? They are REAL, nonetheless. However, modern science certainly supports my assertion that eating a diet of fresh vegetables and proteins grown with minimal use of chemicals is healthier than eating processed foods high in sugar and carbs. Don't believe it? Knock yourselves out. I'm not promoting this, again, unless it is a client. I do train people in healthy eating/cooking. Most of my clients were people who knew me when I was fat, sick, and tired. I certainly have sympathy for anyone who wants to change their lifestyle for the better, but to each his own.
So why don't you trust the FDA? What do you mean by you only buy stuff from farmers you trust? Do you actually watch them grow the stuff to make sure that they don't use pesticides (cause that's a little excessive TBH) or do you just trust them by word of mouth? How is that different from the government?

I congratulate you on whatever you find that matches your diet and living habits, but since you are a chef, you might realize that you have access to certain information or the actual fruits and veggies to make your diet doable. I'm am glad that you are trying to help people but it sounds awfully close to the marketing I see often on CT sites for so-called miracle diet pills, veggie pills, and brain growth crap.

Also I am sure you know that what you do won't and can't work for everybody even if they lived in an area where they can do this stuff. Suburbs are not well known for providing for alternative healthy eating lifestyles. The only saladworks in my upper middle class town, has gone out of business mostly due to high prices. $4 for 3 tacos at taco bell or you can spend twice that much on a wrap at saladworks!
 

KAT

Active Member
There have been many studies of glysophate - eg see this info sheet
That site is wonderful - it gives conclusions directly contradicting the studies it quotes:
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf look at page 6 for example

a) pregnant rats fed glyphosate - low body weight for mothers and young, many young with skeletal defects
b) rabbits, so many mothers died they could get no results on the young
c) conclusion - analysis of studies shows "did not cause reproductive effects in animals studies". Waaa????

Same thing on several other pages, too.

They go on to say it is excreted mostly unmetabolised, YET up to 7 days later is still to be found in tissues, fat, bone, eggs etc. (although it is allegedly also all cleared in 168 hours).

Then ends up with "the clinical significance of residues in human tissues in unknown " which is NOT the same as saying it's safe or harmless. (p 7).

"Because glyphosate binds to the soil, plant uptake ... from soil is negligible" BUT
"Lettuce, carrots and barley contained glyphosate residues up to one year after the soil was treated ....."

C'mon guys, which is it? is there soil uptake or not?

And then there were no studies on glyphosate residues in FOOD (for FDA purposes).

A good half of the quoted studies were unpublished ones (so not checkable) from or for Monsanto, so can't be considered neutral by any means.

None of this proves Roundup Ready GM food is dangerous but it certainly doesn't prove it is safe, either. If people wish to play safe by avoiding it, it should be their right to do so, which means food with GM ingredients should be so labelled.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
1361 scientist from 99 countries. So in the the whole scheme of things not many scientist are upset that the Seralini study was identified as a poorly constructed study designed to come to a specific conclusion that never should have made it through the peer review process and has been withdrawn from publication. It is an appeal to authority that doesn't have much authority behind it. On the brighter side if the petitioners carry through with their threat to:

Elsevier's publishing standards will probably marginally improve.
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
a) pregnant rats fed glyphosate - low body weight for mothers and young, many young with skeletal defects
b) rabbits, so many mothers died they could get no results on the young
c) conclusion - analysis of studies shows "did not cause reproductive effects in animals studies". Waaa????
Probably because the statistical analyses proved that their experimental groups weren't significantly different from the control groups. Glyphosate has been tested extensively and has been shown to be one of the mildest and least toxic herbicides on the market. People have every right to avoid GMO's if they want, but they should know that the science points to it being harmless.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Probably because the statistical analyses proved that their experimental groups weren't significantly different from the control groups. Glyphosate has been tested extensively and has been shown to be one of the mildest and least toxic herbicides on the market. People have every right to avoid GMO's if they want, but they should know that the science points to it being harmless.
It is a case of selective reading that ignores the dosages required to produce adverse effects. Like anything else if you use a high enough dosage you will eventually cause damage to the test organism.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Question: What is glyophosphate metabolized into by the plant? Most of the "harmful" chemicals plants use to thrive are turned into sugars and other chemicals our bodies need while some is left over for waste... just like our bodies behave. Do you (or does anyone) know what these chemicals are turned into when the "digests" its food?
See this paper on residues.

the ones identified are apparently less toxic than glysophate, itself having "low toxicity", so are of no concern.

A review of AMPA is given here
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Inti Confirmed Tesla quote; "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments" Quotes Debunked 12
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
Leifer 3 scientists investigating melting Arctic ice may have been assassinated Conspiracy Theories 8
Critical Thinker San Diego Chemtrail group to 'educate' & Protest Scientists/Doctors Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Jacob Aman J. Marvin Herndon's chemtrail letter to San Diego City Council Contrails and Chemtrails 39
Mick West Debunked: 13 Foot Long Horned Sea Monster, Scientists Baffled [Decomposed Shark Carcass] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Joe Kerr Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 66
Critical Thinker Claim: "Australian and US scientists reverse ageing in mice, humans could be next" General Discussion 0
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington & Co. get taken to the cleaners by climate scientists Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Steve Funk Three "Chemtrail Scientists" murdered Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? Contrails and Chemtrails 19
Mick West Rotten eggs smell not from Chemtrails, claim scientists Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Debunked: Scientists risked destroying the earth during nuclear tests and CERN Conspiracy Theories 27
Mick West Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Advocating violence against "Chemtrail" planes, pilots, scientists, and debunkers Contrails and Chemtrails 1762
ThorGoLucky The Telegraph: Morgellons Disease continues to defeat scientists Health and Quackery 7
Mick West The Independent: Scientists face 'shocking levels' of vilification over discoveries Practical Debunking 2

Related Articles

Top