|
On September 20 2012 08:53 Green Sun s Zenith wrote:
I wonder why they don't want to label foods that are genetically modified. They know its terrible for human consumption yet they put mass GMO out in the market, unlabeled. So people can not choose whether or not to eat genetically modified foods.
The scientifici evidence that GMO crops are harmful to humans is contentious at best, and certainly not strong enough to warrant any kind of warning on the labels.
If you want to avoid eating any genetically modified foods, you're probably best off growing your own from stock harvested in the 1400s. More or less everything you eat is genetically modified to varying extents.
|
@AUGCodon: Okay I just saw your post. If you could link a pdf with the entire article, it would be great. The materials and methods section is really important, and I can't tell much without it. Also did you upload the same figure twice?
Ok problems with the graph: what's on the Y axis? Number of animals? What are the total number of animals? If animals are euthanized (killed humanely) before the end-of-experiment timepoint, how is this represented on this graph? This Y axis is best represented by percentages, not absolute numbers, because it's very easy to hide information (the number of control mice may be half the number of the others). The inset bar graph is even more sketchy. What is it showing?
If I eyeball the data, it really doesn't seem like there's any difference between the controls and the 3 different groups of mice. If your hypothesis is that the 33% treated rats would do much worse than 11%, the trend appears to be reversed. However, the numbers of rats that are affected are really smallso you cannot conclude anything from 1 or 2 less mice with tumors. You need at least like 50 rats for each group (so like 200 rats total) before you can see any trends. The result shown in that figure is definitely not statistically significant, I don't even need to see their statistical method to infer that.
About animal: When trying to score yes/no (tumor appearances), you need really really large numbers, because these are stochastic events. For example, group A animals have 30% incidence of tumors and group B animals have 50% incidence of tumors. If each group has only 10 animals, then it's statistically not significant because there's too little animals used to see a trend. If there were 100 animals used, then it might be statistically significant. If 1000 were used, then yeah that's a clear trend. In general, the more animals used, the greater the statistical power.
About controls: You ALWAYS need a control. If you treat the rats with pesticide and see 30% tumors, you might think that's a high incidence of tumors. When happens if the same rats were left without pesticide and 29% developed tumors? That means that the pesticide administration increased tumor incidence by 1%, aka a very insignificant amount. It would also be good if you have a positive control, aka a chemical that causes tumors, to know what a positive result is supposed to look like. If these rats now have a 70% tumor incidence rate, then that's a result that's good to know. If the rats have a 32% tumor rate after treating with the cancer-inducing chemical, then this strain of rats aren't good to test on because there isn't much difference at all between your positive and negative controls.
@MisterFred: Show me the research. Published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, you're just spouting baseless conspiracy theories. On the subject of "everything is a neurotoxin", did you know caffeine completely fucks insects and spiders up? Somehow we're not adversely affected by it, geez that's a good counter-example I pointed out. If you don't believe me, just google "spider web caffeine".
|
On September 20 2012 08:43 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 08:24 Xapti wrote:
Additionally, I found it hard to find/notice the bad effects of the GMO-only group compared to the GMO+pesticide groups, pesticide only groups, or control groups. + Show Spoiler + I saw that picture. First of all thanks for re-posting, because my PDF reader had a giant black circle blocking the top-left corner almost entirely, plus partially on two adjacent graphs.
That said, it doesn't show the control on that graph. Also notice the odd fact that the GMO+R had problems than just the GMO, which seems counter-intuitive.
|
On September 20 2012 09:00 archonOOid wrote:
Seems like another leftist attack on corporate engineering and wealth.
I've seen GMO at first hand and it's really safe.
The agro-chemical industry isn't like tobacco companies.
Yeah...no. Almost no companies have leaders with any humanity. Most will indirectly torture and kill thousands if it means more money.
|
1983 Posts
Non-GMO crops are untested and could potentially be harmful but where are the environmentalists on that end of the stick? It all boils down to anti-corporate, anti-scientific and anti-market hostilities. GMO have been used to increase yields and will be even more important as the world population is growing.
|
On September 20 2012 09:17 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 09:00 archonOOid wrote:
Seems like another leftist attack on corporate engineering and wealth.
I've seen GMO at first hand and it's really safe.
The agro-chemical industry isn't like tobacco companies. Yeah...no. Almost no companies have leaders with any humanity. Most will indirectly torture and kill thousands if it means more money.
And yet people keep supporting these evil businesses by buying their stuff. Shows how much the average person cares.
|
On September 20 2012 08:55 AUGcodon wrote:
I am not much of expert when it comes to animal controls. Anyone care to give us more info? Oh man I just realized, it's not even peer reviewed yet. I was looking for the editors to see if they have any big names there. Probably a good idea to wait until it gets peer reviewed.
Someone in this thread said it was, but I saw it wasn't. We need to clear this up.
On September 20 2012 09:09 SnipedSoul wrote:
Isn't it strange that both GMO corn and roundup cause exactly the same problems? Kidney damage, liver damage, and the same kinds of tumors. How much roundup was still in the corn the mice were eating?
I can only assume that the corn was grown by the reseachers, as they're probably aware of the possibility that it already contains Roundup.
However, even if it wasn't the case, the problem remains : how is it then that rats who have only consumed GMOs have a higher aggravated cancer rate than those who have only consumed Roundup...?
|
Guys, have this many of you SERIOUSLY not heard of this stuff yet? These monstanto produces are nothing short of agent orange. Theres info about this stuff all over the net, just do a quick google search. Its nothing but bad news. The US government has made it illegal to grow your own produce on your own property, and now theyre making the public produce toxic.
Population control if you ask me.
|
On September 20 2012 09:14 Heh_ wrote:
@MisterFred: Show me the research. Published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, you're just spouting baseless conspiracy theories. On the subject of "everything is a neurotoxin", did you know caffeine completely fucks insects and spiders up? Somehow we're not adversely affected by it, geez that's a good counter-example I pointed out. If you don't believe me, just google "spider web caffeine".
Then doubt it. Nothing I typed was contentious. The basis for why these pesticides work has been true for decades. The effects of the chemical residue on our health is disputed, but I didn't declare one way or the other on that, just wished I knew.
Neuro-toxin as in: chemicals designed to kill the pests by destroying their nervous system. Harmful to humans in terms of: in large doses some of these will cause paralysis. This generally only happens in farm accidents, but good lord, are you too lazy to google "paralysis from pesticides farmworkers"?
Or google "estrogen-based pesticides". Heck, some of the first page results ARE from peer-reviewed journals.
Common knowledge doesn't need to be sourced.
|
On September 20 2012 09:24 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 09:14 Heh_ wrote:
@MisterFred: Show me the research. Published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, you're just spouting baseless conspiracy theories. On the subject of "everything is a neurotoxin", did you know caffeine completely fucks insects and spiders up? Somehow we're not adversely affected by it, geez that's a good counter-example I pointed out. If you don't believe me, just google "spider web caffeine". Then doubt it. Nothing I typed was contentious. The basis for why these pesticides work has been true for decades. The effects of the chemical residue on our health is disputed, but I didn't declare one way or the other on that, just wished I knew. Neuro-toxin as in: chemicals designed to kill the pests by destroying their nervous system. Harmful to humans in terms of: in large doses some of these will cause paralysis. This generally only happens in farm accidents, but good lord, are you too lazy to google "paralysis from pesticides farmworkers"? Or google "estrogen-based pesticides". Heck, some of the first page results ARE from peer-reviewed journals. Common knowledge doesn't need to be sourced.
Okay sorry, got pissed after reading post after post of conspiracy theories. I looked at a few reviews and some pesticides have harmful effects on humans in high doses, some don't. I just lumped you with those that immediately jump out and say everything is bad because it's harmful (in high doses that most people aren't exposed to).
|
you can also die from drinking too much water. sure a lot of shit they put into food isn't healthy for you, and i do believe ALL information should be posted on the box, but i don't think it's more harmful than say drinking alcohol.
|
On September 20 2012 09:14 Heh_ wrote:
About animal: When trying to score yes/no (tumor appearances), you need really really large numbers, because these are stochastic events. For example, group A animals have 30% incidence of tumors and group B animals have 50% incidence of tumors. If each group has only 10 animals, then it's statistically not significant because there's too little animals used to see a trend. If there were 100 animals used, then it might be statistically significant. If 1000 were used, then yeah that's a clear trend. In general, the more animals used, the greater the statistical power.
About controls: You ALWAYS need a control. If you treat the rats with pesticide and see 30% tumors, you might think that's a high incidence of tumors. When happens if the same rats were left without pesticide and 29% developed tumors? That means that the pesticide administration increased tumor incidence by 1%, aka a very insignificant amount. It would also be good if you have a positive control, aka a chemical that causes tumors, to know what a positive result is supposed to look like. If these rats now have a 70% tumor incidence rate, then that's a result that's good to know. If the rats have a 32% tumor rate after treating with the cancer-inducing chemical, then this strain of rats aren't good to test on because there isn't much difference at all between your positive and negative controls.
@MisterFred: Show me the research. Published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, you're just spouting baseless conspiracy theories. On the subject of "everything is a neurotoxin", did you know caffeine completely fucks insects and spiders up? Somehow we're not adversely affected by it, geez that's a good counter-example I pointed out. If you don't believe me, just google "spider web caffeine".
About animals : 200 rats were used in the experiment.
About controls : why would you assume that the paper's methodology is poor?
About the use of rats : food is usually tested on rats following the same measures, although with smaller samples and shorter periods of time. If it is not a valid way to test the toxicity of food, then we're all at risk! 
|
On September 20 2012 09:32 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 09:24 MisterFred wrote:On September 20 2012 09:14 Heh_ wrote:
@MisterFred: Show me the research. Published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, you're just spouting baseless conspiracy theories. On the subject of "everything is a neurotoxin", did you know caffeine completely fucks insects and spiders up? Somehow we're not adversely affected by it, geez that's a good counter-example I pointed out. If you don't believe me, just google "spider web caffeine". Then doubt it. Nothing I typed was contentious. The basis for why these pesticides work has been true for decades. The effects of the chemical residue on our health is disputed, but I didn't declare one way or the other on that, just wished I knew. Neuro-toxin as in: chemicals designed to kill the pests by destroying their nervous system. Harmful to humans in terms of: in large doses some of these will cause paralysis. This generally only happens in farm accidents, but good lord, are you too lazy to google "paralysis from pesticides farmworkers"? Or google "estrogen-based pesticides". Heck, some of the first page results ARE from peer-reviewed journals. Common knowledge doesn't need to be sourced. Okay sorry, got pissed after reading post after post of conspiracy theories. I looked at a few reviews and some pesticides have harmful effects on humans in high doses, some don't. I just lumped you with those that immediately jump out and say everything is bad because it's harmful (in high doses that most people aren't exposed to).
Heh, I know the feeling. 
|
On September 20 2012 09:00 archonOOid wrote:
Seems like another leftist attack on corporate engineering and wealth.
I've seen GMO at first hand and it's really safe.
The agro-chemical industry isn't like tobacco companies.
are you joking?
|
On September 20 2012 09:34 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 09:14 Heh_ wrote:
About animal: When trying to score yes/no (tumor appearances), you need really really large numbers, because these are stochastic events. For example, group A animals have 30% incidence of tumors and group B animals have 50% incidence of tumors. If each group has only 10 animals, then it's statistically not significant because there's too little animals used to see a trend. If there were 100 animals used, then it might be statistically significant. If 1000 were used, then yeah that's a clear trend. In general, the more animals used, the greater the statistical power.
About controls: You ALWAYS need a control. If you treat the rats with pesticide and see 30% tumors, you might think that's a high incidence of tumors. When happens if the same rats were left without pesticide and 29% developed tumors? That means that the pesticide administration increased tumor incidence by 1%, aka a very insignificant amount. It would also be good if you have a positive control, aka a chemical that causes tumors, to know what a positive result is supposed to look like. If these rats now have a 70% tumor incidence rate, then that's a result that's good to know. If the rats have a 32% tumor rate after treating with the cancer-inducing chemical, then this strain of rats aren't good to test on because there isn't much difference at all between your positive and negative controls.
@MisterFred: Show me the research. Published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, you're just spouting baseless conspiracy theories. On the subject of "everything is a neurotoxin", did you know caffeine completely fucks insects and spiders up? Somehow we're not adversely affected by it, geez that's a good counter-example I pointed out. If you don't believe me, just google "spider web caffeine". About animals : 200 rats were used in the experiment. About controls : why would you assume that the paper's methodology is poor? About the use of rats : food is usually tested on rats following the same measures, although with smaller samples and shorter periods of time. If it is not a valid way to test the toxicity of food, then we're all at risk!
200 is really low. Divided into male and female, 100 each. Then 4 groups, 25 in each group. That's really really little, especially if you want to draw statistical conclusions based on differences of 1-2 animals. If what you say is true that less testing is done on food introduced into the supply chain, then that's a cause for concern.
|
And yet, even though this is the most rigorous kind of test about GMOs so far, you trust them blindly? :p
|
On September 20 2012 09:33 Silidons wrote:
you can also die from drinking too much water. sure a lot of shit they put into food isn't healthy for you, and i do believe ALL information should be posted on the box, but i don't think it's more harmful than say drinking alcohol.
You chose to drink alcohol or not, and it's negative effects are well known. On the other hand you don't know what pesticide was used on the vegetables you buy. Or in the food made with vegetables or fruits you buy.
|
On September 20 2012 09:14 Heh_ wrote:
@AUGCodon: Okay I just saw your post. If you could link a pdf with the entire article, it would be great. The materials and methods section is really important, and I can't tell much without it. Also did you upload the same figure twice?
Ok problems with the graph: what's on the Y axis? Number of animals? What are the total number of animals? If animals are euthanized (killed humanely) before the end-of-experiment timepoint, how is this represented on this graph? This Y axis is best represented by percentages, not absolute numbers, because it's very easy to hide information (the number of control mice may be half the number of the others). The inset bar graph is even more sketchy. What is it showing?
If I eyeball the data, it really doesn't seem like there's any difference between the controls and the 3 different groups of mice. If your hypothesis is that the 33% treated rats would do much worse than 11%, the trend appears to be reversed. However, the numbers of rats that are affected are really smallso you cannot conclude anything from 1 or 2 less mice with tumors. You need at least like 50 rats for each group (so like 200 rats total) before you can see any trends. The result shown in that figure is definitely not statistically significant, I don't even need to see their statistical method to infer that.
About animal: When trying to score yes/no (tumor appearances), you need really really large numbers, because these are stochastic events. For example, group A animals have 30% incidence of tumors and group B animals have 50% incidence of tumors. If each group has only 10 animals, then it's statistically not significant because there's too little animals used to see a trend. If there were 100 animals used, then it might be statistically significant. If 1000 were used, then yeah that's a clear trend. In general, the more animals used, the greater the statistical power.
About controls: You ALWAYS need a control. If you treat the rats with pesticide and see 30% tumors, you might think that's a high incidence of tumors. When happens if the same rats were left without pesticide and 29% developed tumors? That means that the pesticide administration increased tumor incidence by 1%, aka a very insignificant amount. It would also be good if you have a positive control, aka a chemical that causes tumors, to know what a positive result is supposed to look like. If these rats now have a 70% tumor incidence rate, then that's a result that's good to know. If the rats have a 32% tumor rate after treating with the cancer-inducing chemical, then this strain of rats aren't good to test on because there isn't much difference at all between your positive and negative controls.
@MisterFred: Show me the research. Published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, you're just spouting baseless conspiracy theories. On the subject of "everything is a neurotoxin", did you know caffeine completely fucks insects and spiders up? Somehow we're not adversely affected by it, geez that's a good counter-example I pointed out. If you don't believe me, just google "spider web caffeine".
Check your PM
|
I hope OP updates with some of the criticisms leveled against the paper from the BBC article. Non-statistically significant sample sizes, use of a rat species prone to developing tumours, emotive presentation of results etc all strike me as extremely poor form for a scientific paper.
|
On September 20 2012 10:21 TMStarcraft wrote:
I hope OP updates with some of the criticisms leveled against the paper from the BBC article. Non-statistically significant sample sizes, use of a rat species prone to developing tumours, emotive presentation of results etc all strike me as extremely poor form for a scientific paper.
Same, scientific publications are supposed to be neutral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/a/img716/7863/gmomaize.png)
