GMO conspiracy theories

[Oxymoron]

They didn't JUST attack it for using particular rats.

That was one problem among many, the sum of which is "a lousy experiment"

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm?WT.mc_id=RSS&emt=1

The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.
EFSA's initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. To enable the fullest understanding of the study the Authority has invited authors Séralini et al to share key additional information.

Such shortcomings mean that EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested.

...
Main findings of Initial Review
The task force, whose members were drawn from the Authority's GMO, pesticide and scientific assessment units, has outlined a list of issues about the paper that would need to be resolved before it could be viewed as well-conducted and properly-reported study.

• The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.
• The authors split the rats into 10 treatment sets but established only one control group. This meant there was no appropriate control for four sets – some 40% of the animals - all of whom were fed GM maize treated or not treated with a herbicide containing glyphosate.
• The paper has not complied with internationally-recognised standard methods – known as protocols - for setting up and carrying out experiments. Many of these procedures are developed by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).
• For a study of this type, the relevant OECD guideline specifies the need for a minimum of 50 rats per treatment group. Séralini et al used only 10 rodents per treatment set. The low number of animals used is insufficient to distinguish between the incidence of tumours due to chance rather than specific treatment effects.
• The authors have not stated any objectives, which are the questions a study is designed to answer. Research objectives define crucial factors such as the study design, correct sample size, and the statistical methods used to analyse data - all of which have a direct impact on the reliability of findings.
• No information is given about the composition of the food given to the rats, how it was stored or details of harmful substances – such as mycotoxins – that it might have contained.
• It is not possible to properly evaluate the exposure of the rats to the herbicide as intake is not clearly reported. The authors report only the application rate of the herbicide used to spray the plants and the concentration added to the rats' drinking water but report no details about the volume of the feed or water consumed.
• The paper does not employ a commonly-used statistical analysis method nor does it state if the method was specified prior to starting the study. The validity of the method used is queried and there are questions over the reporting of tumour incidence. Important data, such as a summary of drop outs and an estimation of unbiased treatment effects have not been included in the paper.
• Many endpoints – what is measured in the study – have not been reported in the paper. This includes relevant information on lesions, other than tumours, that were observed. EFSA has called on the authors to report all endpoints in the name of openness and transparency.

The research was carried out by Caen University in France, and has been peer reviewed by independent scientists to guarantee the experiments were properly conducted and the results are valid.

I have already debunked the 'prone to cancer' myth/lie and yet they are so dumb they list it as their first complaint

I see no difference in 'numbers of rats used' in the other studies which I quoted and I strongly suspect all the other myriad of trials used similar numbers a well as this seems standard practice... albeit absolutely shameful.

Are you or anyone else suggesting the other trials are invalid/unprofessional whatever...?

This is a clear and utter whitewash rubbish and anyone who believes differently should be forced to eat it themselves.

Like I said... Yum Yum, enjoy

 

[Mick West]

The research was carried out by Caen University in France, and has been peer reviewed by independent scientists to guarantee the experiments were properly conducted and the results are valid.

I have already debunked the 'prone to cancer' myth/lie and yet they are so dumb they list it as their first complaint

What exactly did you debunk? They are prone to cancer. This was not discussed in the study. It's been misrepresented in anti-GMO literature.

 

[MikeC]

I see you read it... not.

Main findings of Initial Review

The task force, whose members were drawn from the Authority's GMO, pesticide and scientific assessment units, has outlined a list of issues about the paper that would need to be resolved before it could be viewed as well-conducted and properly-reported study.

• The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.

Yes - precisely - when you have rats that are known to grow an extraordinary number of tumours you have to show that you are accounting for the "normal" number of tumours, and they didn't even do that. that is just basic design of any experiment - show that you have accounted for the "normal background" situation.

Why do you think that highlighting such an obvious error in the experiment somehow validates it??

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Oh what a web we weave when we practice to deceive

Oxy, Mick showed a detailed listing of the inadequacies of the study you trumpeted yesterday.

24 hours later, I see you cannot respond to the self evident inadequacies of the experimental design, reporting and analysis.
Concession by default.

Insect, plant, and microorganism resistance to pesticides[even organic ones], weedkillers and even antibiotics is a problem, but not a reason to cease use of any of these. There are strategies to safely use them, and practices that are self-defeating and encourage resistance. The article discusses how this is being done.

You may not know it, oxy, but glyphosate was used before glyphosate resistant GM crops were around, beginning about 30 years ago. The herbicide mentioned in the BBC article is 50 years old. It was a chemical used to make Agent Orange, not Agent Orange itself, which is a section of the BBC article you didn't quote.

 

[MikeC]

Not to mention that the trouble with Agent orange was not the herbicides that made it up but the dioxin that was a contaminant.

But as soon as anyone mentions "Agent Orange" all the loonies say "oooeeer... agent orange = evil" - without a thought for what the actual problem with it was.

2,4 D has been used as a herbicide worldwide before and after the agent orange disaster - it was released commercially in 1946. It has a half life in soil of about 10 days, no known link to cancer, and because iof it's prolonged use worldwide is one of the most studied herbicides ever!

 

[Jazzy]

don't put it in your compost, else you'll be seeding your whole land with diseases.

Hi Jay. Generally I agree with you but on this occasion, no.

If compost heap temperature is managed so that its ferment temperature exceeds 50 degrees C for several days, then the thermophilic bacteria either chelate or ingest both inorganic and organic poisons of ALL types. (They're the ones responsible for igniting haystacks.)

Spores, seed, metals, viruses, bacteria, any chemical or biochemical compound you care to name that isn't especially radioactive*. They are either eaten or chelated so well that only thermophilic bacteria might suffer anew. Those bacteria are the very fires of hell when given their ideal conditions. "God's" biochemical pioneers have had three billion years of practice before we arrived late to the party.

Of course, just exposure to sunlight and the atmosphere does the job if you are prepared to wait.

This "threat" is imaginary, and like all the others, built on pseudoscience.

The whole genetic "argument" demonstrates the lack of understanding of the arguer in this topic. Genes are common to all life and have no "identity". The genes we have are our true history. (That's enough, Ed.)

* I dare say they can't handle radioactivity just as we can't. Even so, there might be some specialists about...

 

[Trailspotter]

I dare say they can't handle radioactivity just as we can't. Even so, there might be some specialists about...

Sure, there are some specialists about. One of the most studied is the bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans.

 

[Jazzy]

Sure, there are some specialists about. One of the most studied is the bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans.

Bless its lead-lined heart...

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Hi Jay. Generally I agree with you but on this occasion, no.

If compost heap temperature is managed

Sure, I've had a dry compost heap burn up on me, not literally fire but much of it disintegrated into something close to ash. The operative word about composting pathogens for a homeowner is "if" he gets a hot pile. Many homeowners don't know how to get a pile to heat up, I think mostly because of mass since a smallholder might only accumulate a heap during the fall and it is harder to get it to heat up as weather gets cooler, or they just don't get the C/N ratio right. For such a person who might have a dozen dried up tomato plants amounting to less than five pounds the loss isn't that great. I probably had a truckload when I farmed and put them on the burn pile even though I could make a hot pile. I once had 500 tomato plants turn into stinking mush in 24 hours due to some wilt, and an open-pollinated heirloom variety which was susceptible.

I used to make some tremendous piles with fall cut hay and truckloads of shredded leaves I picked up from homeowners. My prime N source was too-hot-to-use chicken/turkey manure from a local producer. I built a 5 foot long and 5 foot wide fork tine attachemnt for my front end loader and could make a 50x 20 ft long pile. Had to use a 2" fire hose to wet it down.

 

[Oxymoron]

Oxy, Mick showed a detailed listing of the inadequacies of the study you trumpeted yesterday.

Well here we have it laid out bare:

24 hours later, I see you cannot respond to the self evident inadequacies of the experimental design, reporting and analysis.
Concession by default.

You haven't responded in 24 hrs so you give TACIT agreement/concession/permission...

This is the way the government agencies and the elite operate.... if you do not object to what we intend to do... we take that as compliance/acceptance.

Why do you think I have my Tag: "You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?"

I know they operate on this basis... they 'test the water' seeing how adverse the reaction is. If the reaction is too strong, they back of a bit... bring in a milder version... then a bit later a bit more... and more.. until they get what they want anyway.

But even by NWO standards... I think you take the biscuit in demanding rebuttal to your satisfaction, (which can never be acheived because you will not back down despite all the evidence).

I have rebutted the NWO report in depth already and no, I do not concede at all.

Specify what further aspects of the bunk you need to be debunked because it is purely a gish gallop of puerile temper tantruming ASFAICS.

You may not know it, oxy, but glyphosate was used before glyphosate resistant GM crops were around, beginning about 30 years ago. The herbicide mentioned in the BBC article is 50 years old. It was a chemical used to make Agent Orange, not Agent Orange itself, which is a section of the BBC article you didn't quote.

Thats right I did not quote that bit... I provided a link so people could actually view the article. I noted Mick provided no such link which is quite strange, even after further enquiry there was still nothing forthcoming... Then I saw why!

So lets get to the basics here... Who is happy to eat this stuff... now tell the truth?

 

[Mick West]

Thats right I did not quote that bit... I provided a link so people could actually view the article. I noted Mick provided no such link which is quite strange, even after further enquiry there was still nothing forthcoming... Then I saw why!

So lets get to the basics here... Who is happy to eat this stuff... now tell the truth?

Where was there a missing link? I must have missed that.

I have no problem eating GMO products. I'm no industry fan-boy, but I don't see any good evidence that they are unsafe, and I see a lot of bunk. It's very low on my list of priorities.

I did vote FOR the GMO labeling proposition here in California though. While it was seriously flawed, the industry BS campaign turned me against them.

 

[Oxymoron]

A part of the problem with these rat studies is images like:

The average reader just sees GMO = Cancer, when really most of the rats got tumors because they were bred to get tumors.

I was referring to the fact there was no link, which is unusual as you normally provide a source. I questioned it and stated the facts of the experiment must have been set out in the article but you still did not supply a source so I looked it up myself. I wouldn't have mentioned it other than I was being criticised for selectively picking out text, (which I had to type myself as the copy paste function was disabled on that section).

I do not see any bunk around this issue. It was a proper scientific study which surpassed all previous studies as it followed through to end of life.

I stated at the outset I thought the numbers of rats studied were to low and actually disgracefully so but this appears to be the norm as the myriad of other cancer research trials also used very low, (some lower), of these type of rats and these studies are not being criticised or negated so one naturally has to ask ... why this one?

Mick, if you are brave enough, (note compliance with politeness rules), (note the smiley), to eat this stuff after seeing these pictures and and seeing the results of this test... what can I say.

I would be interested to see how many others will claim the same.

Do you have any similar test results and data... I understand there were earlier tests which ran for much shorter time spans. It would indeed be interesting to see which breeds and numbers etc these other tests used?

 

[Oxymoron]

Here is the actual report.

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

Abstract
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated
with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In
females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible
in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles
were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and
before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified
by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5
times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked
and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large
palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very
significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters
were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of
Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.
! 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

 

[solrey]

So lets get to the basics here... Who is happy to eat this stuff... now tell the truth?

We pretty much eat strictly organic, mostly locally or self produced. I don't support industrial monoculture nor most aspects of GM foods. Yet I still agree that the French GM corn study is seriously flawed to the point of being totally invalid. The study itself, and those who cling to it, aren't exactly lending credibility to the anti-gmo movement.

cheers

 

[Oxymoron]

We pretty much eat strictly organic, mostly locally or self produced. I don't support industrial monoculture nor most aspects of GM foods. Yet I still agree that the French GM corn study is seriously flawed to the point of being totally invalid. The study itself, and those who cling to it, aren't exactly lending credibility to the anti-gmo movement.

cheers

Hi Solray, Have you read the actual report?

Do you mind saying in what regard you find it flawed?

There are some links to previous tests in the report, I am trying to see in what ways they differ. So far I note they generally use the same strain of rat.

Any comments would be appreciated.

 

[Oxymoron]

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14252-seralini-and-science-an-open-letter

[h=2]Seralini and science: an open letter[/h] Tuesday, 02 October 2012 11:31

extract:

1) History of Attacks on Risk-finding Studies. Seralini and colleagues are just the latest in a series of researchers whose findings have triggered orchestrated campaigns of harassment. Examples from just the last few years include Ignacio Chapela, a then untenured Assistant Professor at Berkeley, whose paper on GM contamination of maize in Mexico (Quist and Chapela, 2001) sparked an intensive internet-based campaign to discredit him. This campaign was reportedly masterminded by the Bivings Group, a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing – and frequently hired by Monsanto (Delborne, 2008).

The distinguished career of biochemist Arpad Pusztai, came to an effective end when he attempted to report his contradictory findings on GM potatoes (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a). Everything from a gag order, forced retirement, seizure of data, and harassment by the British Royal Society were used to forestall his continued research (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999b; Laidlaw, 2003). Even threats of physical violence have been used, most recently against Andres Carrasco, Professor of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires, whose research (Paganelli et al. 2010) identified health risks from glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup (Amnesty International, 2010).

It was no surprise therefore, that when in 2009, 26 corn entomologists took the unprecedented step of writing directly to the US EPA to complain about industry control of access to GM crops for research, the letter was sent anonymously (Pollack, 2009).

2) The Role of the Science Media. An important but often unnoticed aspect of this intimidation is that it frequently occurs in concert with the science media (Ermakova, 2007; Heinemann and Traavik, 2007; Latham and Wilson, 2007). Reporting of the Seralini paper in arguably the most prestigious segments of the science media: Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, and the Washington Post uniformly failed to "balance" criticism of the research, with even minimal coverage of support for the Seralini paper (Carmen, 2012; Enserink, 2012; MacKenzie, 2012; Pollack, 2012). Nevertheless, less well-resourced media outlets, such as the UK Daily Mail appeared to have no trouble finding a positive scientific opinion on the same study (Poulter, 2012).

 

[Oxymoron]

Over and over again in the review of 19 separate studies on the effects of GMOs on mammals, Environmental Sciences Europe are these three words,"More studies needed". It is abundantly clear that both GMOs made to be resistant to herbicides (aka "RoundUp Ready") and those made to produce insecticides have damaging impacts on the health of mammals who consume them, particularly in the liver and kidneys. We already know that from the trials of 90 days and less. In looking a little deeper into the info, we found a number of issues that point to a probable increased level of toxicity when these foods are consumed over the long term, including likely multi-generational effects.

http://www.occupymonsanto360.org (http://s.tt/18OnD)

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Erio_Barale-Thomas
[h=2]Conflicts of interest[/h] In his letter, Barale-Thomas takes Seralini to task for failure to declare a conflict of interest in his paper, namely the fact that Seralini is president of CRIIGEN, the independent research group based in France, which contributed funding to the research. CRIIGEN's contribution to funding the study was declared in the paper.
However, in his letter condemning Seralini, Barale-Thomas seems to have been less than open about his own conflicts of interest. He gives his affiliation in the letter only as president of the SFPT. But his LinkedIn page (29 November 2012) tells a different story. It states that since 2003 to the present he has been principal scientist at Janssen Biotech, which is part of the Janssen Pharmaceutica group of companies that belong to Johnson & Johnson.[4]​[5]​


Erio Barale-Thomas's LinkedIn page 29.11.12


Confirming this position is a video "customer testimonial" by Barale-Thomas for digital technology, in which he is described as "Erio Barale-Thomas (Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical R&D, Beerse, Belgium)".[6]​
Prior to joining Janssen he was a pathologist at the genetically modified crop and chemical company Bayer CropScience (1998-2003).[7]​
So Barale-Thomas has a vested interest in reassuring the public about the safety of genetically modified organisms, which are central to Janssen's interests and to his own position – and in attacking Seralini's study, which cast the safety of GMOs into doubt.

​

 

[Mick West]

I was referring to the fact there was no link, which is unusual as you normally provide a source. I questioned it and stated the facts of the experiment must have been set out in the article but you still did not supply a source so I looked it up myself. I wouldn't have mentioned it other than I was being criticised for selectively picking out text, (which I had to type myself as the copy paste function was disabled on that section).
[...]
Mick, if you are brave enough, (note compliance with politeness rules),

(note the smiley), to eat this stuff after seeing these pictures and and seeing the results of this test... what can I say.

I didn't give a link because that's THE image, the one that everyone uses. It's everywhere. The particular usage was from the Daily Mail in the UK.

But it was to illustrate a particular problem - it's basically being portrayed as "this is what happens to rats when you feed them GMO corn". Which is total nonsense. That is what happens to that breed of rats, full stop. The rat on the right (L) was actually NOT FED GMO CORN! See this is EXACTLY the problem I was trying to discuss. Most of the rats got tumors, because that's what they are bred to do. But where are the photos of rats in the control group with tumors? It was claimed that the control group got less, but there are various problems with the study.

You seem to basically be ignoreing all the reasons why the study is not particulalry useful, as listed above by the European Food Safety Authority, and relying instead on an appeal to emotion by a misleading interpretation of things like this image.

 

[Oxymoron]

I didn't give a link because that's THE image, the one that everyone uses. It's everywhere. The particular usage was from the Daily Mail in the UK.

But it was to illustrate a particular problem - it's basically being portrayed as "this is what happens to rats when you feed them GMO corn". Which is total nonsense. That is what happens to that breed of rats, full stop. The rat on the right (L) was actually NOT FED GMO CORN! See this is EXACTLY the problem I was trying to discuss. Most of the rats got tumors, because that's what they are bred to do. But where are the photos of rats in the control group with tumors? It was claimed that the control group got less, but there are various problems with the study.

You seem to basically be ignoreing all the reasons why the study is not particulalry useful, as listed above by the European Food Safety Authority, and relying instead on an appeal to emotion by a misleading interpretation of things like this image.

So what is the problem... I keep trying to find out?

Is it the type of rat used.... most studies like this use this strain of rat

Is it there were not enough rats... How many would you have liked to see?

If you can't tell me what is wrong with the study... how can I rebut or agree or even discuss?

 

[Mick West]

So what is the problem... I keep trying to find out?

Is it the type of rat used.... most studies like this use this strain of rat

Is it there were not enough rats... How many would you have liked to see?

If you can't tell me what is wrong with the study... how can I rebut or agree or even discuss?

I already posted this list:


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm?WT.mc_id=RSS&emt=1

The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.
EFSA's initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. To enable the fullest understanding of the study the Authority has invited authors Séralini et al to share key additional information.

Such shortcomings mean that EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested.

...
Main findings of Initial Review
The task force, whose members were drawn from the Authority's GMO, pesticide and scientific assessment units, has outlined a list of issues about the paper that would need to be resolved before it could be viewed as well-conducted and properly-reported study.

• The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.
• The authors split the rats into 10 treatment sets but established only one control group. This meant there was no appropriate control for four sets – some 40% of the animals - all of whom were fed GM maize treated or not treated with a herbicide containing glyphosate.
• The paper has not complied with internationally-recognised standard methods – known as protocols - for setting up and carrying out experiments. Many of these procedures are developed by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).
• For a study of this type, the relevant OECD guideline specifies the need for a minimum of 50 rats per treatment group. Séralini et al used only 10 rodents per treatment set. The low number of animals used is insufficient to distinguish between the incidence of tumours due to chance rather than specific treatment effects.
• The authors have not stated any objectives, which are the questions a study is designed to answer. Research objectives define crucial factors such as the study design, correct sample size, and the statistical methods used to analyse data - all of which have a direct impact on the reliability of findings.
• No information is given about the composition of the food given to the rats, how it was stored or details of harmful substances – such as mycotoxins – that it might have contained.
• It is not possible to properly evaluate the exposure of the rats to the herbicide as intake is not clearly reported. The authors report only the application rate of the herbicide used to spray the plants and the concentration added to the rats' drinking water but report no details about the volume of the feed or water consumed.
• The paper does not employ a commonly-used statistical analysis method nor does it state if the method was specified prior to starting the study. The validity of the method used is queried and there are questions over the reporting of tumour incidence. Important data, such as a summary of drop outs and an estimation of unbiased treatment effects have not been included in the paper.
• Many endpoints – what is measured in the study – have not been reported in the paper. This includes relevant information on lesions, other than tumours, that were observed. EFSA has called on the authors to report all endpoints in the name of openness and transparency.

 

[Oxymoron]

I already posted this list:


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm?WT.mc_id=RSS&emt=1

The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.
EFSA's initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. To enable the fullest understanding of the study the Authority has invited authors Séralini et al to share key additional information.

Such shortcomings mean that EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested.

...
Main findings of Initial Review
The task force, whose members were drawn from the Authority's GMO, pesticide and scientific assessment units, has outlined a list of issues about the paper that would need to be resolved before it could be viewed as well-conducted and properly-reported study.

• The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.
• The authors split the rats into 10 treatment sets but established only one control group. This meant there was no appropriate control for four sets – some 40% of the animals - all of whom were fed GM maize treated or not treated with a herbicide containing glyphosate.
• The paper has not complied with internationally-recognised standard methods – known as protocols - for setting up and carrying out experiments. Many of these procedures are developed by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).
• For a study of this type, the relevant OECD guideline specifies the need for a minimum of 50 rats per treatment group. Séralini et al used only 10 rodents per treatment set. The low number of animals used is insufficient to distinguish between the incidence of tumours due to chance rather than specific treatment effects.
• The authors have not stated any objectives, which are the questions a study is designed to answer. Research objectives define crucial factors such as the study design, correct sample size, and the statistical methods used to analyse data - all of which have a direct impact on the reliability of findings.
• No information is given about the composition of the food given to the rats, how it was stored or details of harmful substances – such as mycotoxins – that it might have contained.
• It is not possible to properly evaluate the exposure of the rats to the herbicide as intake is not clearly reported. The authors report only the application rate of the herbicide used to spray the plants and the concentration added to the rats' drinking water but report no details about the volume of the feed or water consumed.
• The paper does not employ a commonly-used statistical analysis method nor does it state if the method was specified prior to starting the study. The validity of the method used is queried and there are questions over the reporting of tumour incidence. Important data, such as a summary of drop outs and an estimation of unbiased treatment effects have not been included in the paper.
• Many endpoints – what is measured in the study – have not been reported in the paper. This includes relevant information on lesions, other than tumours, that were observed. EFSA has called on the authors to report all endpoints in the name of openness and transparency.

the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate.

Like what... Why is it in BIG RED LETTERS... Hardly scientific is it? Who did it? And WHY?

The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested.

Ditto

The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.

Absolute rubbish. It is exactly the same strain used in all previous tests. It is known on every level that these rats are prone to cancer... which is precisely why they are used in virtually all such tests.

As I have been forced to repeat ad nauseum... it is the significant INCREASE in tumours in the test groups compared to the control group, which were fed normally.

This clearly shows that GM R is tumour promoting as otherwise there would be no increase!

Similarly if you had a different food type for the rats which showed a decrease... the different food would be tumour inhibiting

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Erio_Barale-Thomas

• OECD 408, the 90-day rodent feeding trials that Séralini decided to extend to a long-term period in his study, requires ten animals per sex per group.[13]​ This is the same number that Séralini used. It is also the same number that Monsanto analyzed for blood and urine chemistry in its 90-day tests on GMOs, including the test that concluded NK603 maize was safe to be marketed.[14]​
• OECD 453, the combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity protocol, requires ten animals per sex per group for the chronic toxicity phase (the same number used by Séralini), but 50 per sex per group for the carcinogenicity phase.[15]​
• OECD 452, the chronic toxicity protocol, requires 20 animals per sex per group, but only ten per sex per group must be analyzed for blood and clinical chemistry.[16]​
• OECD carcinogenicity protocol 451 and the carcinogenicity phase of 453 require 50 animals per sex per group.[17]​[18]​

The OECD itself stipulates that the reason why it requires 50 animals per sex per group for certain protocols is "in order to increase the sensitivity of the study", in other words, to ensure that a real toxic effect is not missed by an insensitive study with too few animals. The aim is to protect the public from a 'false negative' or false conclusion of safety.[19]​ Insensitivity of study design was not an issue with Seralini's study, as toxic effects were found.

The authors split the rats into 10 treatment sets but established only one control group. This meant there was no appropriate control for four sets – some 40% of the animals - all of whom were fed GM maize treated or not treated with a herbicide containing glyphosate.

I would say a control group is for all the different experiments... it is ridiculous to demand identical control groups for all groups.

And to add

In an example of double standards, Barale-Thomas weighed in on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) consultation on the design of these industry feeding studies on GM foods, complaining that the number of animals proposed for these experiments was too high. EFSA's proposed 96 animals compares unfavorably in terms of experimental power with Séralini's 200. But Barale-Thomas wanted EFSA to return to its previous suggestion of 80 or fewer.[

Ergo 5 'control groups' of 10 rats would be 50 rats leaving 46 test rats... Are these people even sentient. Are these the type of 'scientists' we want to entrust our lives and our childrens lives to?

Do I really really have to go on debunking every asinine, disingenuous and completely biased 'critique'?

Can you please read the link I provided and use normal reasoning and then list any 'true' concerns?

Here it is once again: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Erio_Barale-Thomas

 

[MikeC]

Well then - since you know better about control groups and accounting for the propensity of these rats to grow tumours, I expect you'll be rewriting the rules of scientific experiment shortly.

Let us know when you publish them.

 

[George B]

Well then - since you know better about control groups and accounting for the propensity of these rats to grow tumours, I expect you'll be rewriting the rules of scientific experiment shortly.

Let us know when yuo publish them.

Seems to me because of the seriousness of the findings, no matter how flawed, someone of authority would have a repeat of such research done with extreme care, transparency, and expediency . . . if this has been done great . . . if not why not????

 

[Jazzy]

Like what... Why is it in BIG RED LETTERS... Hardly scientific is it? Who did it? And WHY? Ditto

The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.

Absolute rubbish. It is exactly the same strain used in all previous tests. It is known on every level that these rats are prone to cancer... which is precisely why they are used in virtually all such tests. As I have been forced to repeat ad nauseum... it is the significant INCREASE in tumours in the test groups compared to the control group, which were fed normally. This clearly shows that GM R is tumour promoting as otherwise there would be no increase! Similarly if you had a different food type for the rats which showed a decrease... the different food would be tumour inhibiting. I would say a control group is for all the different experiments... it is ridiculous to demand identical control groups for all groups. Do I really really have to go on debunking every asinine, disingenuous and completely biased 'critique'?

You have neither understood or debunked anything. Quite obviously.

 

[Mick West]

I added the red highlighting to demonstrate that they were objecting to a range of things, and not just the type of rats.

As I have been forced to repeat ad nauseum... it is the significant INCREASE in tumours in the test groups compared to the control group, which were fed normally.

This clearly shows that GM R is tumour promoting as otherwise there would be no increase!

You keep saying it, but that does not actually make it true. Given the low sample sizes, it's quite possible that the results were those of chance. Scientifically spreading it is not "statistically significant", defined as having a P value of less that 0.05. None of the results crossed this criteria for statistical significance.

In addition to the several other methodological problems listed in the responses to the original article, and in other places, this is simply not strong evidence of anything.

 

[Oxymoron]

I added the red highlighting to demonstrate that they were objecting to a range of things, and not just the type of rats.



You keep saying it, but that does not actually make it true. Given the low sample sizes, it's quite possible that the results were those of chance. Scientifically spreading it is not "statistically significant", defined as having a P value of less that 0.05. None of the results crossed this criteria for statistical significance.

In addition to the several other methodological problems listed in the responses to the original article, and in other places, this is simply not strong evidence of anything.

Well just for starters

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/glyphosate.cfm

These non-enforceable health goals, based solely on possible health risks and exposure over a lifetime with an adequate margin of safety, are called maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG). Contaminants are any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substances or matter in water. The MCLG for glyphosate is 0.7 mg/L or 700 ppb. EPA has set this level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems.

So the amount of glyphosate administered to the rats was 7000% less than the unenforceable 700 ppb that they recommend as a safe dose so to be honest you are probably in big trouble anyway.

Hence probably one of the reasons why cancer rates are rising so high in developed countries and in the U.S in particular.

Currently 1 in 3 people are expected to have cancer in their lifetime.

So what part of the criticism

In his critique of Séralini's study, Barale-Thomas argues that Séralini used too few animals (ten per sex per group, total of 20 per treatment group) and that his experiment was thus "underpowered"[8]​ – in other words, too weakly designed to justify conclusions drawn.

When juxtaposed against...

In an example of double standards, Barale-Thomas weighed in on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) consultation on the design of these industry feeding studies on GM foods, complaining that the number of animals proposed for these experiments was too high. EFSA's proposed 96 animals compares unfavorably in terms of experimental power with Séralini's 200. But Barale-Thomas wanted EFSA to return to its previous suggestion of 80 or fewer.[

....do you have difficulty with.

Is it not clear that there is a specific contradiction between the complaint and the constraints?

Why would that be?

 

[Mick West]

Cancer rates have decreased, not increased.
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/ReportNationRelease2012

I don't have a problem with that criticism of double standards (although i've not looked into it in detail). What I have a problem with is the suggestion that the results are statistically significant, when they are not.

 

[Oxymoron]

Cancer rates have decreased, not increased.
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/ReportNationRelease2012

I don't have a problem with that criticism of double standards (although i've not looked into it in detail). What I have a problem with is the suggestion that the results are statistically significant, when they are not.

They are far more statistically significant than results using the same or less numbers of rats which were conducted prior to this study as the previous studies only looked at the results of 90 days.

OECD 408, the 90-day rodent feeding trials that Séralini decided to extend to a long-term period in his study, requires ten animals per sex per group.[13]​ This is the same number that Séralini used. It is also the same number that Monsanto analyzed for blood and urine chemistry in its 90-day tests on GMOs, including the test that concluded NK603 maize was safe to be marketed.

These tests decided it was safe.... is that all it takes to get something passed as safe when you are the great Monsanto?
Apparently so. But it should not be so. The safety certificate should be revoked until proper tests are done.

But this argument is disingenuous. Barale-Thomas cites OECD guidelines for a carcinogenicity study - but Seralini's was not a carcinogenicity study. It was a chronic toxicity study which happened to find tumours - which should be extended to a full-scale carcinogenicity study before the product can be claimed safe.

So why were the following tests deemed sufficient to pronounce the product as safe?

Yet in the GM industry's own experiments on GM foods conducted to gain regulatory approval, including Monsanto's 90-day study on the same NK603 maize that Séralini tested, only ten animals per sex per group, the same number that Séralini used, are analysed for blood and urine chemistry.[9]​[10]​ Furthermore, the GM company is free to choose which ten to analyse, allowing selection bias to enter the experiment and invalidating the results.

Below deals with the projected increase in cancer in less developed countries as western foods - poor diet, lack of exercise etc but I think they are really referring to the western junk food causing it. The west already has it, (junk food), thats why our cancer rates are so high.

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worldwide-cancer-incidence-predicted-to-rise

Global Cancer Incidence Could Rise 75 Percent by 2030

The number of people worldwide with cancer is set to increase 75 percent by 2030, with particularly severe rises in the poorest nations. That's according to a report by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, published Thursday in the Lancet Oncology. Increases will likely be seen in types of cancer linked with a westernized lifestyle—poor diet, lack of exercise, and bad habits like smoking—such as breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer

For the west... I would trust the BBC for most accurate reporting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14140424

Rising cancer rates mean four in 10 people in the UK get the disease at some point in their lives, a health charity says.

Macmillan Cancer Support says the figure has risen significantly in the past decade.
The charity says the rise poses a "massive challenge" for the NHS.
Ministers in England say they are working to improve cancer survival rates and the quality of life after diagnosis and treatment.
Macmillan Cancer Support says a decade ago about a third of people, or 33%, developed cancer at some point in their lives. The charity says that figure has risen to more than 40%.

I suppose it is all down to who you believe in the info wars

 

[Mick West]

More people get cancer because people live longer. The actual incidence of cancer has not increased.

More from the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19703834

Death rates from cancer are "set to fall dramatically" by 2030, according to Cancer Research UK.It says fewer people smoking as well as improvements in diagnosis and treatment will lead to a 17% drop in death rate.
About 170 UK deaths per 100,000 of population were from cancer in 2010, and this figure is predicted to fall to 142 out of every 100,000.
Some of the biggest killers - lung, breast, bowel, and prostate cancer - are part of the trend.

As more people live to an elderly age, the total number of people who actually develop and die from cancer will increase - but these deaths will make up a smaller proportion of the total number of deaths, so the death rate will fall.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15480754

The number of new cancer cases in the UK could rise by 45% by 2030 to more than 430,000 a year, research suggests.
The rise is explained almost entirely by the expected increase in the number of people living in the UK and the ageing population

 

[MikeC]

Quoting OECD as a benchmark for these trials is dishonest.

OECD 408 is a TOXICITY trial guideline.

Carcinogenic studies are covered by OECD 451:

Number and sex of animals
19. Both sexes should be used. A sufficient number of animals should be used so that a thorough
biological and statistical evaluation is possible. Each dose group and concurrent control group should
therefore contain at least 50 animals of each sex.

Why not use the guideline that is SPECIFICALLY FOR STUDY OF CANCERS??

 

[Oxymoron]

Quoting OECD as a benchmark for these trials is dishonest.

OECD 408 is a TOXICITY trial guideline.

Carcinogenic studies are covered by OECD 451:

Number and sex of animals
19. Both sexes should be used. A sufficient number of animals should be used so that a thorough
biological and statistical evaluation is possible. Each dose group and concurrent control group should
therefore contain at least 50 animals of each sex.

Why not use the guideline that is SPECIFICALLY FOR STUDY OF CANCERS??

but Seralini's was not a carcinogenicity study. It was a chronic toxicity study which happened to find tumours

But yes... lets have a MAJOR STUDIES, into toxicity and cancers with scientific consensus from both sides that the trial formats meet all standards and prove GM safe and are in the interests of the consumers safety.

Until then, all GM should be deemed unsafe until proved otherwise

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Until then, all GM should be deemed unsafe until proved otherwise

 

[MikeC]

but Seralini's was not a carcinogenicity study. It was a chronic toxicity study which happened to find tumours

Indeed - which is why it is invalid - trumpeting "we've found cancer", in a study deigned to measure toxicity, among mice designed to grow cancer, and not accounting for those cancers is NOT VALID!

But yes... lets have a MAJOR STUDIES, into toxicity and cancers with scientific consensus from both sides that the trial formats meet all standards and prove GM safe and are in the interests of the consumers safety.

Well we already have 1 toxicity study that failed to find any toxicity in an extended trial - Seralini's!!

Until then, all GM should be deemed unsafe until proved otherwise

Despite the utter lack of any indications that they are unsafe in any regard??

 

[Oxymoron]

Indeed - which is why it is invalid - trumpeting "we've found cancer", in a study deigned to measure toxicity, among mice designed to grow cancer, and not accounting for those cancers is NOT VALID!

Again for those still obviously unable to grasp the very simple kindergarden concept... it is the massive increase in cancers in the test groups when compared to the control group.

And if it had been found that the non control group, (those being fed with minute amounts of GM R), had significantly less cancers than the control group... do you think this study would be being attacked...?

No you and Jay and Monsanto and everyone else would be running around saying "look at these amazing results, even at 0.1 ppb R in water + GM grain "we have independent proof that GM R foods contain anti cancer properties"... everyone should be eating them and it should be added to the water in even greater quantities than are already permitted, i.e. over 700 ppb.

Well we already have 1 toxicity study that failed to find any toxicity in an extended trial - Seralini's!!

Massive increase in cancer growth does not constitute 'toxicity'... How amazingly enlightened you are!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity

Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism. Toxicity can refer to the effect on a whole organism, such as an animal, bacterium, or plant, as well as the effect on a substructure of the organism, such as a cell (cytotoxicity) or an organ such as the liver (hepatotoxicity). By extension, the word may be metaphorically used to describe toxic effects on larger and more complex groups, such as the family unit or society at large.

A central concept of toxicology is that effects are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in too high a dose, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect. Toxicity is species-specific, lending cross-species analysis problematic. Newer paradigms and metrics are evolving to bypass animal testing, while maintaining the concept of toxicity endpoints.[1]​

Despite the utter lack of any indications that they are unsafe in any regard??

So you are happy that it is safe despite the fact that the rats outside the control group had massively increased instances of cancer growth... that is your scientific evidence that GM R is safe/non toxic is it? Wow!!!

So despite your and Jays obvious fanaticism to expose other people to the risks of being force fed GM R, we have still yet to hear whether you both are personally actually eat the stuff?

 

[Mick West]

Again for those still obviously unable to grasp the very simple kindergarden concept... it is the massive increase in cancers in the test groups when compared to the control group.

And if it had been found that the non control group, (those being fed with minute amounts of GM R), had significantly less cancers than the control group... do you think this study would be being attacked...?

It would be attacked if it claimed the result was statistically significant when it was not.

I toss a coin ten times, it comes up heads seven times, and tails three. Does that then prove that heads it more likely to come up than tails.

I repeat it with another coin. I get seven tails and three heads. Does this prove the coin has different properties?

No, because the results are not statistically significant.

 

[George B]

It would be attacked if it claimed the result was statistically significant when it was not.

I toss a coin ten times, it comes up heads seven times, and tails three. Does that then prove that heads it more likely to come up than tails.

I repeat it with another coin. I get seven tails and three heads. Does this prove the coin has different properties?

No, because the results are not statistically significant.

IYO has there been sufficient statistically valid studies which indicate GMO foods are safe??

 

[Oxymoron]

It would be attacked if it claimed the result was statistically significant when it was not.

I toss a coin ten times, it comes up heads seven times, and tails three. Does that then prove that heads it more likely to come up than tails.

I repeat it with another coin. I get seven tails and three heads. Does this prove the coin has different properties?

No, because the results are not statistically significant.

Then why bother with the tests in the first place if they show nothing, especially when Monsanto have done even less conclusive tests and deemed them GM R as safe?

On what basis are they deemed safe?

On far less conclusive tests than the one you are attacking, that's what on.

It is blatant manipulation for financial gain or for something far far darker.

As George asks

"has there been sufficient statistically valid studies which indicate GMO foods are safe??

"

The answer is no there has not, because the Monsanto tests used the same strain of rats in similar or less numbers over a mere 90 day period... so how can that be valid?

And why has it been approved for many years for human consumption or even animal consumption, i.e. even allowed in the food chain?

 

[Jazzy]

So you are happy that it is safe despite the fact that the rats outside the control group had massively increased instances of cancer growth... that is your scientific evidence that GM R is safe/non toxic is it? Wow! So despite your and Jays obvious fanaticism to expose other people to the risks of being force fed GM R, we have still yet to hear whether you both are personally actually eat the stuff?

Good nutrition increases the growth of cancers. "You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?" In your case you had better keep talking. You have already demonstrated your need for science education to everyone except yourself. Now's the time to get some.

IYO has there been sufficient statistically valid studies which indicate GMO foods are safe?

All food is GMO. That's how it proliferates - by genetic change. The first human-induced genetic modifications are now around 12,000 years old, but modification has been the name of the game for billions of years. Food is not necessarily "safe" in the first place.

Very little of today's foods have been validated by "sufficient statistically valid studies". Fear appears to be your "cargo cult". Don't deceive yourself.

 

[Oxymoron]

This topic is even more important than the trans fats which are now widely banned but which were foisted on consumers for many years exactly like the GM R is currently.

Do you really want to be consuming it only to be told in a few years .... 'we made a mistake it is highly carcinogenic?'

Too late mate!

http://www.bantransfats.com/

When we started this website in April 2003, trans fats were not even on the national radar screen. It was easy to maintain a trans fat website in those days, because so little was happening.

Since that time, our campaign has resulted in tremendous success. Trans fat content in the national food supply has diminished dramatically. There is so much news about trans fat that it is impossible to track it. For that reason, we are not keeping this website updated. Much of the information on this website is out of date. However, the health information is current.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...s-of-lives-will-be-saved-uk-told-1946458.html

Banning trans fats – whose nutritional value is sometimes compared to putting "melted tupperware on toast" – would save thousands of lives, researchers say today.


The UK should follow the example of New York, California, Switzerland, Denmark and Austria and implement a ban on the hydrogenated vegetable oils whose main selling point is that they are cheap, experts from Harvard Medical School and Harvard Public School of Health, Boston, US, say.
Trans fats – also known as trans-fatty acids – are found in cakes, pastries, pies, biscuits, snacks and fast foods. They are formed when liquid vegetable oil is turned into solid fat in a high temperature process called hydrogenation, and, as well as being cheap, they extend the shelf life of products that contain them.

The GM R likely has the ability to adversely affect not only those who consume it but future generations who do not.

 

[George B]

Good nutrition increases the growth of cancers. "You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?" In your case you had better keep talking. You have already demonstrated your need for science education to everyone except yourself. Now's the time to get some.


All food is GMO. That's how it proliferates - by genetic change. The first human-induced genetic modifications are now around 12,000 years old, but modification has been the name of the game for billions of years. Food is not necessarily "safe" in the first place.

Very little of today's foods have been validated by "sufficient statistically valid studies". Fear appears to be your "cargo cult". Don't deceive yourself.

Oh . . . I didn't know that selective breeding was the same thing as cross species gene splicing and using recombinant DNA . . . thanks for clarifying that issue for me!!