GMO's myths and truths. Heavily noted review of the claims of the GMO giants

[Pete Tar]

... Gene insertion is damaging. It is not real food.
...

Does it affect the ability of our bodies to break it down into its basic nutrients after ingestion?
If we can still do that, it's food.

 

[electrojet]

Hi Pete,

There needs to be better studies on how the modified food is digested and it's nutritional value vs. natural food. The current Ag. studies say it is the same and therefore no studies are needed. Stanford says it is nutritionally equivalent. The actual way humans break it down and use it for food is altered to a degree since protein and amino acids and gene transcription are not the same in GM food like products. ... according to the anecdotal reports the modified stuff doesn't smell the same.

Hybrids can become a concern. Wheat has been combined and recombined so many times that people have digestion problems with gluten. This happened without gene insertion. The real concern is when an unlike gene is inserted and this would never happen outdoors.


Here are some concerns expressed by the late Erwin Chargaff biochemist National science medal winner (see Chargaff's rule).

Not all scientists are sanguine about genetic engineering. Among the doubters is Erwin Chargoff, the eminent biochemist who is often referred to as the father of molecular biology. He warned that all innovation does not result in "progress." Chargoff once referred to genetic engineering as "a molecular Auschwitz" and warned that the technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat to the world than the advent of nuclear technology. "I have the feeling that science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate," he wrote in his autobiography, Heraclitean Fire. Noting the "awesome irreversibility" of genetic engineering experiments being planned, Chargoff warned that; "...you cannot recall a new form of life... It will survive you and your children and your children's children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard-of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it."

from; http://www.greens.org/s-r/18/18-02.html

In the course of analysis to identify potential allergens in GMO crops, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has belatedly discovered that the most common genetic regulatory sequence in commercial GMOs also encodes a significant fragment of a viral gene (Podevin and du Jardin 2012). This finding has serious ramifications for crop biotechnology and its regulation, but possibly even greater ones for consumers and farmers. This is because there are clear indications that this viral gene (called Gene VI) might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance. What Podevin and du Jardin discovered is that of the 86 different transgenic events (unique insertions of foreign DNA) commercialized to-date in the United States 54 contain portions of Gene VI within them. They include any with a widely used gene regulatory sequence called the CaMV 35S promoter (from the cauliflower mosaic virus; CaMV). Among the affected transgenic events are some of the most widely grown GMOs, including Roundup Ready soybeans (40-3-2) and MON810 maize. They include the controversial NK603 maize recently reported as causing tumors in rats (Seralini et al. 2012).


The researchers themselves concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI “might result in unintended phenotypic changes”. They reached this conclusion because similar fragments of Gene VI have already been shown to be active on their own (e.g. De Tapia et al. 1993). In other words, the EFSA researchers were unable to rule out a hazard to public health or the environment.


In general, viral genes expressed in plants raise both agronomic and human health concerns (reviewed in Latham and Wilson 2008). This is because many viral genes function to disable their host in order to facilitate pathogen invasion. Often, this is achieved by incapacitating specific anti-pathogen defenses. Incorporating such genes could clearly lead to undesirable and unexpected outcomes in agriculture. Furthermore, viruses that infect plants are often not that different from viruses that infect humans. For example, sometimes the genes of human and plant viruses are interchangeable, while on other occasions inserting plant viral fragments as transgenes has caused the genetically altered plant to become susceptible to an animal virus (Dasgupta et al. 2001). Thus, in various ways, inserting viral genes accidentally into crop plants and the food supply confers a significant potential for harm.

From; http://independentsciencenews.org/c...-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/




Forget the safety of bT, there is a ripple effect whereby other genes are altered in most unusual ways. This report details how the altering of one gene conveys a ripple effect. Read it here; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792179/


Other than these minor snares, genetically altered food is tasty-goody!


Bryan


“Love is omni-inclusive, progressively exquisite, understanding and compassionately attuned to other than self.”
― Buckminster Fuller


“I just invent. Then I wait until man comes around to needing what I’ve invented.”
― Buckminster Fuller


“It is essential that anyone reading this book know at the outset that the author is apolitical. I was convinced in 1927 that humanity’s most fundamental survival problems could never be solved by politics.” -B.Fuller

 

[Cairenn]

And one of your sources is using the highly discredited Seralini study. What some group says is not a fact, it is SCIENCE that is important.

 

[Soulfly]

And one of your sources is using the highly discredited Seralini study. What some group says is not a fact, it is SCIENCE that is important.

The study linked in that article is testing for (I believe) allergens and says this.
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/2012GMC0020R.pdf

In conclusion, different P35S variants are in use to express
proteins in transgenic plants. Here, we detailed the overlap of
P35S with the coding sequence of gene VI. Our bioinformatic
analyses indicated that no ORFs are present in the P35S that
are similar to known toxic and allergenic proteins. Possible unintended effects that are linked to the use of extended versions of
the P35S have been determined. The -343 variant, identified by
Odell and colleagues,22 contains all of the necessary elements for
full promoter activity and does not appear to result in the presence of an ORF with functional domains, rendering it and its
related variants the most appropriate promoter variants for avoiding unintended effects.

Content from External Source

 

[Pete Tar]

... The actual way humans break it down and use it for food is altered to a degree since protein and amino acids and gene transcription are not the same in GM food like products. ... according to the anecdotal reports the modified stuff doesn't smell the same.
...

Has this been proven (it breaks down differently) or is that your speculation? I would like to see the work on that if possible.
It would break down to the same base thing though wouldn't it?
Are you concerned that the different processes in breaking it down would produce secondary, unwanted reactions or substances? (and of course, is that concern based on science?)

Can a 'difference in smell' be analysed chemically?
Anecdotal evidence tends to be good in urban myths, less so in science.
I'm not saying it's not true, just that it would be premature for me to believe you.

 

[Cairenn]

DR Erwin Chargoff seems to have become bitter when he did not get a Noble prize for his work on DNA. I wonder if that colored his response to any type of genetic engineering?

It does not look like he had any evidence, just his personal belief.

 

[David Fraser]

Has this been proven (it breaks down differently) or is that your speculation? I would like to see the work on that if possible.
It would break down to the same base thing though wouldn't it?
Are you concerned that the different processes in breaking it down would produce secondary, unwanted reactions or substances? (and of course, is that concern based on science?)

Can a 'difference in smell' be analysed chemically?
Anecdotal evidence tends to be good in urban myths, less so in science.
I'm not saying it's not true, just that it would be premature for me to believe you.

Odour can certainly be analysed using Gas Chromatography. Outside of that it relies on people smelling it, known as an "organoleptic" technique. I know this through experience. For my dissertation for my BSc in Marine Biology I studied the rate of oxidative rancidity and free radical production in fillets of mackerel. One of the quality standards was smell. Now I did not mind it but as each test group ran for 14 days the lab began to stink a little bit. I fact all you could smell on our floor was rotting fish for nearly 30 weeks. It got to a stage that the people in the IVF lab upstairs put a written complaint in as the smell was "disturbing the test mice". Apparently after I left they just threw away the fridge I had been using. Sorry I know that is totally off topic but it still makes me smile.


But back on topic. The main criticism with Seralinis trial as well as others is down to how the experiments are run. The diets and doses in no way mimic the human diet never mind the choice of animal. I have read some trials that have used cells but again it seems difficult to transpose the figures into a diet. The simple thing one would expect by now is to see epidemiological studies, but again given the complexity of the human diet it would be difficult to pin down causative factors without human testing.

I think that everything is getting bogged down about the issue of RR crops when there are so many others, with the other crops often having traits spliced from similar plants. But also what is the issue with crops that are not aimed at the foodchain? Is this the only issue that everyone has, crops for food? My issue is with outcomes in biodiversity especially in an environment like the UK. I admit that the ecosystems are not as fragile as some people would have us believe but diversity is the key. But again a crop that may seem unsuitable for the UK may be ideal for a more open environment.

 

[electrojet]

Hi Pete,

I have to find the research showing the alteration of proteins and other genes. There are really bright people in the field though that are firm believers that this is what is going on. Humans have done some really odd genetic modifications.

The anecdotal stuff is that natural news covered woo woo. Squirrels and cows only eat the non modified corn. You are right. It's garbage until you do it personally a few times or it is repeated under rigorous controls.

When did lactose intolerance start or become common? Are there legions of lactose intolerant people that pre-date modern milk practices ?

Hi Cairenn,

The Seralini study will be followed by other studies. Future studies may be better designed, have better protocols and controls. Humans are amazingly resilient. In 20 years, we will have a whole new set of woes and many of the concerns being expressed right now will be in the dustbin. I think transgenic issues will be with us, but the discussion will certainly be a lot different.

So Chargaff became bitter and then took it out on genetic engineering? His comments scream 'The sky is falling-ARGGHHH!' They are fully alarmist and with out acknowledging solutions. That part is quite sad. He is certainly afforded an inside look based upon his career, but in the end it is only 1 person's belief and fear.

I still prefer non - GMO food, but eating with others is a great blessing and joy. I don't turn down food.

Peace,

Bryan

 

[electrojet]

Hi Biggerdave,

Odour can certainly be analysed using Gas Chromatography. Outside of that it relies on people smelling it, known as an "organoleptic" technique. I know this through experience. For my dissertation for my BSc in Marine Biology I studied the rate of oxidative rancidity and free radical production in fillets of mackerel. One of the quality standards was smell. Now I did not mind it but as each test group ran for 14 days the lab began to stink a little bit. I fact all you could smell on our floor was rotting fish for nearly 30 weeks. It got to a stage that the people in the IVF lab upstairs put a written complaint in as the smell was "disturbing the test mice". Apparently after I left they just threw away the fridge I had been using. Sorry I know that is totally off topic but it still makes me smile.


But back on topic. The main criticism with Seralinis trial as well as others is down to how the experiments are run. The diets and doses in no way mimic the human diet never mind the choice of animal. I have read some trials that have used cells but again it seems difficult to transpose the figures into a diet. The simple thing one would expect by now is to see epidemiological studies, but again given the complexity of the human diet it would be difficult to pin down causative factors without human testing.

I think that everything is getting bogged down about the issue of RR crops when there are so many others, with the other crops often having traits spliced from similar plants. But also what is the issue with crops that are not aimed at the foodchain? Is this the only issue that everyone has, crops for food? My issue is with outcomes in biodiversity especially in an environment like the UK. I admit that the ecosystems are not as fragile as some people would have us believe but diversity is the key. But again a crop that may seem unsuitable for the UK may be ideal for a more open environment.

Lol ! That is a really great science gets rancid experience ! ...The little sniffing mice musta been horrified...Hilarious !

Designing good studies going forward will be a big issue. I just naturally stiffen a little regarding genetically modified trees. I find a lot of areas of research revolting. A human gene in a plant or a pig gene in a potato just doesn't sit well with me. Those are just examples, I do not claim these examples to match trials that have been done. I am sure that there have been some odd experiments.

Peace !

Bryan

 

[Soulfly]

Here is Forbes take on the killer viral plant gene scare.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...nt-gene-is-the-latest-anti-gmo-activist-rant/

 

[David Fraser]

Hi Biggerdave,


Lol ! That is a really great science gets rancid experience ! ...The little sniffing mice musta been horrified...Hilarious !

Designing good studies going forward will be a big issue. I just naturally stiffen a little regarding genetically modified trees. I find a lot of areas of research revolting. A human gene in a plant or a pig gene in a potato just doesn't sit well with me. Those are just examples, I do not claim these examples to match trials that have been done. I am sure that there have been some odd experiments.

Peace !

Bryan

What if the gene transfer was to produce a medical product or drug though? Is that still as revolting? I used to be really anti GM crops and was an active Greenpeace activist when they first came to the UK. However I am far from anti GMO as a whole. Now I am more pragmatic. I see a great deal of potential in GM plants, as fuel sources, as sources of medicines and also see there potential in geoengineering (greening the deserts etc). As a food source I am on the fence. I source organically anyway, but that is not really an anti chemical issue but I prefer to keep my carbon footprint low so prefer to source as much locally, which ironically for living in a city tends to be organic. We have labelling in the UK and I am fine with that. I don't eat processed foods so the whole thing does not really affect me.

 

[Soulfly]

What if the gene transfer was to produce a medical product or drug though? Is that still as revolting? I used to be really anti GM crops and was an active Greenpeace activist when they first came to the UK. However I am far from anti GMO as a whole. Now I am more pragmatic. I see a great deal of potential in GM plants, as fuel sources, as sources of medicines and also see there potential in geoengineering (greening the deserts etc). As a food source I am on the fence. I source organically anyway, but that is not really an anti chemical issue but I prefer to keep my carbon footprint low so prefer to source as much locally, which ironically for living in a city tends to be organic. We have labelling in the UK and I am fine with that. I don't eat processed foods so the whole thing does not really affect me.

Human insulin is genetically engineered. I sure hope anyone against the manipulation of genes doesn't have a loved one with diabeetus!
http://www.abpischools.org.uk/page/modules/diabetes/diabetes6.cfm?coSiteNavigation_allTopic=1


I found this interesting on organic footprint.
http://cleanmetrics.typepad.com/gre...o-organics-have-a-lower-carbon-footprint.html

 

[JRBids]

When did lactose intolerance start or become common? Are there legions of lactose intolerant people that pre-date modern milk practices ?

I don't know, when did lactose intolerance start? What is "modern milk practice"? My mother, who is 84 has always been lactose intolerant.

 

[Belfrey]

I don't know, when did lactose intolerance start? What is "modern milk practice"? My mother, who is 84 has always been lactose intolerant.

In reality, adult lactose intolerance is the primitive state, normal among most mammals. It's lactose tolerance via the continued production of lactase through adulthood that is the mutation, thought to have developed (in some populations more than others) along with domestication of dairy-producing animals.

 

[Boston]

Didn't have time to consider some of the responses today but I would like to include for consideration the position paper of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine

In part it reads

From
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:

Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.

Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.

(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)

Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D.

 

[electrojet]

What if the gene transfer was to produce a medical product or drug though? Is that still as revolting? I used to be really anti GM crops and was an active Greenpeace activist when they first came to the UK. However I am far from anti GMO as a whole. Now I am more pragmatic. I see a great deal of potential in GM plants, as fuel sources, as sources of medicines and also see there potential in geoengineering (greening the deserts etc). As a food source I am on the fence. I source organically anyway, but that is not really an anti chemical issue but I prefer to keep my carbon footprint low so prefer to source as much locally, which ironically for living in a city tends to be organic. We have labelling in the UK and I am fine with that. I don't eat processed foods so the whole thing does not really affect me.

I am for research in those other areas but don't like the current food technology. I like the quote of Buckminster Fuller, We are acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons. There should be some great technologies in the near future. It will be interesting to watch.

Bryan

 

[David Fraser]

I am for research in those other areas but don't like the current food technology. I like the quote of Buckminster Fuller, We are acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons. There should be some great technologies in the near future. It will be interesting to watch.

Bryan

Thanks for the clarification. To be fair the technology predates that of food and has been going on since the discovery of bacterial gene transfer in 1923. The turning point was 1973 but the first practical uses were, as mentioned earlier, to develop insulin and interferon. The basic technology is not that hard and most biology undergrads may do it in their first year. However my real issue is that organisations like Greenpeace are just anti GMO crops, period. That stifles progress and development unfortunately.

 

[Cairenn]

I think I upset a friend on FB today.

He had posted the meme about GM foods causing fertility issues. I posted that the tests were invalid, because of soy's natural estrogen mimic issues and I suggested that he check here.

Cairenn Day There are NOT 1000's of trial that shows any issues from the consumption of GM crops.

Please check out these threads on metabunk.org. There are others there also

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1613-Debunked-March-against-Monsanto-campaign...See More
Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign
metabunk.org
The 'usual suspects' are promoting the "March against Monsanto" http://www.march...See More
27 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview
R***** A**** G****** O your so American Cairenn. Yes, there are, world wide. How do you think all the rational folks of Europe got labeling started? Myth? Smoke? Pseudoscience and politics alone? Megabunk? Seriously? a mouthpiece for Monsanto payed for by two shell groups of the industry? Tell me this then, where is the long term study saying the food are free from side effects?
Cairenn Day metabunk is no mouthpiece for ANYONE. It is a group of folks from all around the world that take their time to delve into the rumors that abound on the internet. One person pays for the cost of the forum as a hobby. NO ONE funds it, no one there is trying to sell you supplements or miracle cures or anything. It is fact and science based and not everyone agrees.

I can guarantee you that politics does play a part in the labeling, but most of that is the EU's dependence on heavy regulation. Some of it is good, some of it is not.

In the US, if I buy sterling silver and I use it to make some earrings, I can label them as sterling. An artist in the EU would have to pay to have every pair assayed to make sure that they are sterling. I think you can see where that works against both the artist and the public. It is good, in the fact that no one is ripped off by fake sterling silver jewelry, but it works to eliminate any less expensive artist made jewelry. They have regulations on things like 'surgical steel' . Every batch must be tested to show that they are nickle free (or nearly nickle free---nickle is a common cause of jewelry allergies). Since I am fussy and I want my jewelry to not trigger most allergies, I choose to use either surgical steel earwires that meet the EU standards. They are US made and they are almost 3 times the cost of the imported Chinese ones. It does mean that I can't sell my earrings as cheap as some do.

I look at FACTS that have creditable science to back them up. For Gm products, for all the conspiracies that float around like soap bubbles.

Please take the time to read the posts on metabunk and learn more.

Content from External Source

R***** A**** G****** So no study?[/ex]

Another one unwilling to do any work to back up what they say.

 

[somnamblst]

And one of your sources is using the highly discredited Seralini study. What some group says is not a fact, it is SCIENCE that is important.

I will go as far as calling the Seralini study fraudulent, as Seralini is not a stupid man.

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse rattenstudie Séralini et al.pdf

For their study, Séralini et al. used ‘Sprague-Dawley rats’. This is a laboratory strain that is known for its propensity to the spontaneous development of tumors (see www.harlaneurope.com under ‘lifespan and disease’). The number of tumors that the rats develop spontaneously depends on the amount of food that they are given . The number of spontaneous tumors is highest when these rats are allowed to consume calories without any restriction...

The fact that these animals have a propensity for the spontaneous development of tumors was not mentioned by Séralini et al. in their article, nor how they addressed this in their research design. The rats can also develop tumors at a very early stage. Schardein et al. (1968)8 reported that 6 out of 3,000 rats spontaneously develop tumors within three months, 10 out of 700 within 6 months, 20 out of 400 within 9 months, etc., increasing within 18 months to figures approaching the percentages
mentioned above for 2 years...

Sprague-Dawley rats
It is not unusual to use Sprague-Dawley rats for food experiments. For instance, numerous food safety studies have been carried out on various genetically modified crops whereby the crops were fed to these rats over a period of 90 days. These rats are also often used to test the safety of chemical substances in similar 90-day food experiments. The OESO has developed guidelines for the way in which these experiments should be conducted (OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals;
health effects; test no. 408 9 ; Repeated Dose 90-day Oral Toxicity Study in Rats). In 90-day food experiments, the fact that the rats have a propensity to develop spontaneous tumors plays a minor role. This, however, changes if you use them to carry out two-year studies. Then it plays a much more significant role, because how, in such a long-term experiment, can you differentiate between tumors that occur spontaneously from those that occur as a consequence of eating genetically
modified maize, or drinking Roundup. Experts in the fields of toxicology, food experiments and statistics indicate very clearly that the number of animals per group in this case must be raised drastically, to a minimum of 50 or even 70 per group. With only 10 animals per group you cannot claim with any certainty whether a tumor developed spontaneously or is a tumor that developed as a consequence of a specific diet.


The number of control groups and the number of control animals In their experiment, Séralini et al. not only use too few animals per group, they also use only 10
control animals (1 group) per sex compared to 90 treated animals. This control group was given a diet containing a 33% proportion of non-genetically modified maize, the remaining 67% being standard laboratory rat food. The same control group was used as a reference for all the treatment combinations. In this way, the control animals are less representative for the natural variations mentioned in Section 3 that are present in the population. On the basis of simple probability calculations, it can be concluded that the chances of finding spontaneous tumors in the group of treated animals is much greater than the chances of finding spontaneous tumors in the control group. This is a fundamental error in the research design: there are too few control groups in relation to the treated groups....

. The only thing that the study confirms is that Sprague-Dawley rats, like many other laboratory rats, develop relatively speaking many pathologies and that, as a consequence of this, many of the animals do not reach two years of age. But we have known this since the 1960s.

 

[somnamblst]

Your link references Pusztai

1. Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354

Among the first animal feeding studies on GM diet to be independently peer reviewed, the most renowned is the one conducted at the Rowett Research Institute, Scotland, also known as “Pusztai affair”

which resulted for the researcher in suspension and banning from speaking publicly, and ended up with the not renewing his annual contract. Also co-author reported on suffering from mobbing, while The Lancet, which published this work as a letter was object of criticism. This study aimed at evaluating the effects of short-term rat feeding with GM potatoes expressing the lectinGalanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) gene developed to increase nematode and insect resistance. Histological observations of the stomach, jejunum, ileum, cecum, and colon showed that the presence of GNA in the diets, irrespective of whether originating from transgenic potatoes or from control potato diets supplemented with GNA, was associated with significantly greater mucosal thickness of the stomach when compared with controls. By contrast, a potent proliferative effect on the jejunum was observed in GM potato-based diet, an outcome not observed in controls or in rats fed with control potatoes but added with GNA. This latter result was interpreted as the effect of the gene transfer technique, such as the plant vector used for transferring the exogene or some form of positioning effect in the potato genome caused by the exogene insertion. Two official audits (respectively by Rowett Institute and the Royal Society) stated that the data did not support conclusions and severe experimental drawbacks were remarked, such as poorly designed experiments, presence of uncertainties in the composition of diets, inadequate rat number, incorrect statistical methods, and lacking consistency within experiments. On the other hand, this study has been the banner of anti-GMO movement for attributing interference by biotech companies on GM safety evaluation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584506/

"Genetically modified (GM) food is discussed as an example of the controversial relation between the intrinsic uncertainty of the scientific approach and the demand of citizen-consumers to use products of science innovation that are known to be safe. On the whole, peer-reviewed studies on GM food safety do not note significant health risks, with a few exceptions, like the most renowned "Pusztai affair" and the recent "Seralini case." These latter studies have been disregarded by the scientific community, based on incorrect experimental designs and statistic analysis. Such contradictory results show the complexity of risk evaluation, and raise concerns in the citizen-consumers against the GM food. A thoughtful consideration by scientific community and decision makers of the moral values that are present in risk evaluation and risk management should be the most trustable answer to citizen-consumers to their claim for clear and definitive answers concerning safety/un-safety of GM food"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23444254

 

[blargo]

Looks like there is a new peer reviewed study regarding feeding GMO corn and soy to pigs.

A significant number of genetically modified (GM) crops have been approved to enter human food and animal feed since 1996, including crops containing several GM genes

'stacked' into the one plant. We randomised and fed isowean pigs (N=168) either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet (N=84) or an equivalent non-GM diet (N=84) in a long-

term toxicology study of 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter). Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each

group. The GM corn contained double and triple-stacked varieties. Feed intake, weight gain, mortality and blood biochemistry were measured. Organ weights and pathology

were determined post-mortem. There were no differences between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry

measurements. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025). GM-fed

pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% of GM-fed pigs compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was

worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

In my mind the science is not settled and more study needs to be done.

 

[Cairenn]

It is interesting. but not a smoking gun. I would like to see what peer review says about it.

I did notice these things. It seemed to be a fairly small sample, it mentioned 14 pigs per pen. I may have missed the overall number however. I also noticed that heart, liver and spleen problems were double in the NON GM group. That also might be indicative of a small sample group.

 

[Soulfly]

I get inflammation every time I bang my knee on the corner of my bed, doesn't make me want to get rid of my bed though.

Edit: thought I was in my thread.

 

[blargo]

It is interesting. but not a smoking gun. I would like to see what peer review says about it.

I did notice these things. It seemed to be a fairly small sample, it mentioned 14 pigs per pen. I may have missed the overall number however. I also noticed that heart, liver and spleen problems were double in the NON GM group. That also might be indicative of a small sample group.

N=168 with 84 in each group.

Not smoking gun, authors also said in conclusion need more research on long term effects.

 

[Soulfly]

Seems like the publisher and authors of this study have an organic agenda.
http://www.organic-systems.org/
Dr. Judy Carmen and Dr. Kate Clinch-Jones.
http://www.iher.org.au/content.php?pageID=3
Howard Vlieger even seems to own a couple of farming companies. At least one is organic based, the other seems to be a farm supply/shipping company. Verlyn Sneller is connected to Verity as well.
http://www.veritycorp.com/
http://www.truckcompaniesin.com/dot/676090/

 

[Cairenn]

I wondered who verity farms was. Good find.

 

[Soulfly]

There are just as many concerns that should be raised with organic farming. Lack of serious residual testing has always troubled me.
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/01601-03-HY.pdf

 

[MikeC]

the study of GMO fed to pigs gets a lambasting here

the points about who did it and who funded it are noted as context, but the main criticism comes from the datamining used to generate its conclusions:

Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, said:
“The study’s conclusions don’t really stand up to statistical scrutiny. The authors focus on ‘severe’ stomach inflammation but all the other inflammation categories actually favour the GM-diet. So this selective focus is scientifically inappropriate.
“When analysed using appropriate methods, the stomach inflammation data does not show a statistically statistical association with diet. There are also 19 other reported statistical tests, which means we would expect one significant association just by chance: and so the apparent difference in uterus weight is likely to be a false positive.”

Content from External Source

and

Prof Patrick Wolfe, Professor of Statistics at University College London, said:
“I am not an expert on animal health, husbandry, toxicology etc, and therefore I cannot comment on these aspects of the study. As a statistical methodologist I can however comment on the data analysis undertaken and presented in the article.
“The biggest issue is that the study was not conducted to test any specific hypothesis. This means that the same sample (in this case nearly 150 pigs) is, in effect, being continually tested over and over for different findings.
“The statistical tests employed assume that a single test is done to test a single, pre-stated hypothesis; otherwise the significance levels stemming from the tests are just plain wrong, and can be vastly over-interpreted.
“Thus there is a higher-than-reported likelihood that the results are due purely to chance. The number of pigs being in the low hundreds (instead of, say, the thousands, as is often the case in large medical studies) can make this effect even more prominent.
“Bottom line: a better-designed study would have hypothesized a particular effect (such as changes in stomach size), and then applied a statistical test solely to check this hypothesis. Perhaps another independent team of researchers will go down this path. Until then, this study definitely does not show that GM-fed pigs are at any greater risks than non-GM fed pigs.”

Content from External Source

 

[David Fraser]

the study of GMO fed to pigs gets a lambasting here

the points about who did it and who funded it are noted as context, but the main criticism comes from the datamining used to generate its conclusions:

Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, said:
“The study’s conclusions don’t really stand up to statistical scrutiny. The authors focus on ‘severe’ stomach inflammation but all the other inflammation categories actually favour the GM-diet. So this selective focus is scientifically inappropriate.
“When analysed using appropriate methods, the stomach inflammation data does not show a statistically statistical association with diet. There are also 19 other reported statistical tests, which means we would expect one significant association just by chance: and so the apparent difference in uterus weight is likely to be a false positive.”

Content from External Source

and

Prof Patrick Wolfe, Professor of Statistics at University College London, said:
“I am not an expert on animal health, husbandry, toxicology etc, and therefore I cannot comment on these aspects of the study. As a statistical methodologist I can however comment on the data analysis undertaken and presented in the article.
“The biggest issue is that the study was not conducted to test any specific hypothesis. This means that the same sample (in this case nearly 150 pigs) is, in effect, being continually tested over and over for different findings.
“The statistical tests employed assume that a single test is done to test a single, pre-stated hypothesis; otherwise the significance levels stemming from the tests are just plain wrong, and can be vastly over-interpreted.
“Thus there is a higher-than-reported likelihood that the results are due purely to chance. The number of pigs being in the low hundreds (instead of, say, the thousands, as is often the case in large medical studies) can make this effect even more prominent.
“Bottom line: a better-designed study would have hypothesized a particular effect (such as changes in stomach size), and then applied a statistical test solely to check this hypothesis. Perhaps another independent team of researchers will go down this path. Until then, this study definitely does not show that GM-fed pigs are at any greater risks than non-GM fed pigs.”

Content from External Source

I noticed that the link is for Mark Lynas. He is a very interesting character as going from anti GM to pro GM. He has received a bit of grief and has had the usual cries of being a shill. He has been very vocal about his change in stance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/09/mark-lynas-truth-treachery-gm?

 

[Cairenn]

From that article.

. But the more he looked, the more little David began to resemble Goliath. "Just take the numbers," he says. "Greenpeace, the whole international group, is a $150m outfit [in fact, figures provided by Greenpeace show global income in 2011 as $313.4m]. Bigger than the World Trade Organisation, and much more influential in terms of determining how people think."

Content from External Source

So Greenpeace brings in more money in a year, than than the WTO, that bastion of POWER. Hummmm

 

[David Fraser]

In the comments of the article someone raises the stated opinion of Greenpeace as of 1998

Question 101: ‘Lord Melchett, in relation to genetic modification, what do you object to and why?’

Lord Melchett, Head of Greenpeace, UK: ‘My Lord Chairman, the fundamental objection is that there are unreliable and unpredictable risks.’

Question 105: ‘How far are you prepared to carry your objections to these developments?’

Lord Melchett: ‘I am happy to answer for Greenpeace […] Greenpeace opposes all releases to the environment of genetically modified organisms.’

Question 107: ‘Your opposition to the release of GMOs, that is an absolute and definite opposition? It is not one that is dependent on further scientific research or improved procedures being developed or any satisfaction you might get with regard to the safety or otherwise in future?’

Lord Melchett: ‘It is a permanent and definite and complete opposition based on a view that there will always be major uncertainties. It is the nature of the technology, indeed it is the nature of science, that there will not be any absolute proof. No scientist would sit before your Lordships and claim that if they were a scientist at all.’

Content from External Source

The statement was made at Select Committee looking at GM crops during the height of the fervour in the UK

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldeucom/11/8060312.htm


Organisations like Greenpeace have set their stall at anti GM crops irrespective on what the science may prove. Unfortunately they have a great deal of influence and support in the UK (I go to the Glastonbury Festival each year and they donate some of the profits to Greenpeace as well as giving them a field to set up activities). Essentially for years they have set the GM agenda in the UK, especially the demonising of Monsanto, with most of it based on opinion rather than fact. That is never going to change and if one dares to criticise or show their poor use of science sometimes you are instantly accused of being anti-environment.

I used to be an avid supporter but my time in academia changed that. I worked on a number of projects but my thesis was as to whether offshore wind farms could be adapted to make nurseries for wild cod stocks (No). I attended quite a few public meetings and consultations with regards to windfarms and Gods forbid if Greenpeace where there. It could get quite heated.

 

[somnamblst]

I noticed that the link is for Mark Lynas. He is a very interesting character as going from anti GM to pro GM. He has received a bit of grief and has had the usual cries of being a shill. He has been very vocal about his change in stance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/09/mark-lynas-truth-treachery-gm?

It also appears that the research that appears to be cherry picking evidence for an agenda is abusing animals in order to obtain inflammatory photos for lay person consumption. First Seralini allowing rats with timors to grow to grotesque size and now pigs being kept in horrible conditions.

But if you look at the data they present (and the data presentation is at least a step better than Seralini) there are obvious problems. Clearly all the animals were in very poor health – weaner mortality is reported as 13% and 14% in GM-fed and non-GM fed groups, which they claim is “within expected rates for US commercial piggeries”, a vague statement intended to justify what seem to have been inadequate husbandry standards.

This picture is even more stark in the data presented in Table 3. 15% of non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, while only 6% of GM-fed pigs did so. Similarly, twice as many non-GM pigs as GM ones had liver problems. Why no headlines here? “Pigs fed non-GMO feed 100% more likely to develop heart and liver problems, study finds” – I can just see it in the Daily Mail. But of course negative results were not what Carman et al were looking for.

the paper slyly presents photographs of inflamed pigs stomachs, with non-inflamed and mildly inflamed from non-GM fed pigs, and moderate and severe inflammation presented from GM-fed pigs. Yet 38 of the non-GM pigs, more than half of the total of 73, were suffering moderate or severe inflammation – why not present photos of their stomachs? This is rather reminiscent of how Seralini presented shocking pictures of GM-fed rats with massive cancerous tumours, but did not present pictures of the control rats (non-GM fed) which also developed cancers​

My judgement is that, as with Seralini, this study subjects animals to inhumanely poor conditions resulting in health impacts which can then be data-mined to present ‘evidence’ against GMO feeds. Most damning of all, close to 60% of both sets of pigs were suffering from pneumonia at the time of slaughter – another classic indicator of bad husbandry. Had they not been slaughtered, all these pigs might well have died quickly anyway. No conclusions can be drawn from this study, except for one – that there should be tighter controls on experiments performed on animals by anti-biotech campaigners, for the sake of animal welfare. - See more at: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/#comment-10272​

 

[David Fraser]

It also appears that the research that appears to be cherry picking evidence for an agenda is abusing animals in order to obtain inflammatory photos for lay person consumption. First Seralini allowing rats with timors to grow to grotesque size and now pigs being kept in horrible conditions.

Bad husbandry is a very good point and one I have never really thought of. I guess feeding rats and pigs shedloads of food and just leaving them in a pen or little box is going to affect their health, just think battery chickens. It does make one wonder as well as to why there are not many population/epidemiological surveys of animals in areas growing GM. I don't know the US very well but in the UK many of our arable fields are bordered by hedgerows with all the mammals and birds associated. One would expect that if there are cancer causing crops that populations would decrease. As we don't grow commercial GM crops obviously we cant look at that issue but as far as I can see there are not many studies.

On a side note when at uni I visited the testing facility for Pedigree pet foods. They keep their dogs and cats in what one would class as a normal home environment. That does make sense now as to not stress the animals.

 

[somnamblst]

Actually allowing Sprague-Dawley rats to eat as much as their rat brains desire is a risk factor for tumor development in this rat strain. As Seralini did, and sought to hide. But then we know that obesity is a significant risk factor for cancer in humans.

Seralini is playing lay persons for fools.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/5/851S.full

Overfeeding by ad libitum (AL) food consumption is the most significant, uncontrolled variable affecting the outcome of the current rodent bioassay. The correlation of food consumption, the resultant adult body weight and the 2-y survival in Sprague-Dawley rats is highly significant. Feeding natural ingredient diets that varied in protein, fiber and metabolizable energy content did not improve low 2-y survival if Sprague-Dawley rats were allowed AL food consumption. Moderate dietary restriction (DR) of all diets tested significantly improved survival and delayed the onset of spontaneous degenerative disease (i.e., nephropathy and cardiomyopathy) and diet-related tumors. By 2 y, moderate DR resulted in an incidence of spontaneous tumors similar to that seen with AL consumption; however, the tumors were more likely to be incidental and did not result in early mortality. There was a decreased age-adjusted incidence in pituitary and mammary gland tumors, but tumor volume and growth time were similar in the AL and DR groups, indicating a similar tumor progression with a delay in tumor onset. Moderate DR did not significantly alter drug-metabolizing enzyme activities or the toxicologic response to five pharmaceuticals tested at maximum tolerated doses (MTD). However, moderate DR did require higher doses of compounds to be given before classical MTD were produced with four pharmaceutical drug candidates. Toxicokinetic studies of two of these compounds demonstrated steady-state systemic exposures that were equal or higher in moderate DR-fed rats. These and other data indicate that moderate DR is the most appropriate method of dietary control for rodent bioassays used to assess human safety of candidate pharmaceuticals.

 

[Soulfly]

I knew something was fishy when all they came up with was inflammation.

 

[somnamblst]

I knew something was fishy when all they came up with was inflammation.

But inflammation makes for some good photos to inflame lay person's fears with.

I kid you not, I saw a comment on a Monsanto = a future of gas masks photo meme on Facebook that said that any food that is not organic has 1/6 the nutrition of organic. Fools and their money are easily parted with that kind of gullibility.

 

[Soulfly]

An E coli outbreak in Germany was linked to organic bean sprouts and killed more than Fukushima.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/56314/deadly-organic-worse-than-fukushima/

 

[somnamblst]

BiggerDaver mentioned: "there are not many population/epidemiological surveys of animals in areas growing GM"

Actually Spraqgue-Dawley rats in America vs. Sprague-Dawley rats in Europe is a proxy, as animal feed in the US contains GM ingredients.

Wonder how many lay persons know that 2 years old, is elderly for rats?

There is a reason why studies longer than 90 days in that rat require much more control group animals than Seralini used, by a factor of 7 or 8 times the number of GM fed/Roundup sipping groups. Seralini had only 10, if my memory isn't playing tricks.

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse rattenstudie Séralini et al.pdf

http://www.taconic.com/user-assets/documents/spraguedawley_booklet.pdf

 

[David Fraser]

I knew something was fishy when all they came up with was inflammation.

Talking of fish I have been following the development of the Atlantic Salmon. It has been found that it can breed with other wild varieties of fish

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic.../title/GM-Salmon-and-Wild-Fish-Can-Reproduce/

Now the company claim that the fish would anyway be tank farmed rather than in nets in open water so containment is not an issue. However I just wonder as to the necessity of a salmon with inserted growth genes.

 

[Mick West]

However I just wonder as to the necessity of a salmon with inserted growth genes.

Necessity is probably the wrong word there. We don't need salmon at all (for food). Bigger (faster growing) fish mean bigger profits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/25/gm-salmon-us-fda-consultation

https://www.metabunk.org/sk/GM_salm...nvironment_|_The_Guardian-20130613-102738.jpg

Content from External Source