EPTLatest GMO study : what should we make of it? - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jikan No Muda
39 Posts
| ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
| ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On September 26 2012 22:56 Redox wrote: As a biologist its beyond me how an informed person could even get the idea that modifying the genetic code of an organism somehow makes it harmful to eat it. When natural mutations occur, or when we randomly mutate a genome using mutagens like EMS or radiation people think that is fine, but if we do a specific mutation by inserting one gene its somehow a problem. So basically, if we dont know what we do and mutate a whole genome randomly everyone is cool with it, while when we know what we mutate they object to it. Its just retarded. I guess overall its just a lack of knowledge that fuels the GMO scare. You fear what you dont understand. I think the fear is that the people doing the modification are so consumed by greed that they willingly allow for bad effects from mutation to reach the consumer. Basically a rehash of the fear when pesticides were used on crops that harmed the consumers. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On September 26 2012 21:44 Probe1 wrote: He was the one that opened the previous thread as well. To his credit this thread is much less openly bias'd against genetically modified crops than the first thread. Kukaracha has improved a bad thread but unfortunately cannot fix a broken study. The points from the previous thread (which I am tempted to repost) still hold up. It was a flawed study and although I do not hold GMO infallible- there is no legitimate evidence in this study. On September 26 2012 21:52 NeonFox wrote: This was already brought up and the study was defined as non conclusive and biased. I don't trust Monsanto and don't like their business practice but this study is bullshit. Read the conclusion. Everyone pretty much agrees that the study is unsufficient, although interesting. On September 26 2012 22:39 Derrida wrote: Isn't the 'golden rule' for statistical significance at least 30 observations? Why would anyone conduct an experiment with 10? And if you are going to make a weak scientific study with manipulated facts, why not make it a strong study with better manipulated facts? I don't see the logic. I have no idea, I believe CRIIGEN claimed they didn't have enough funds. I find it believable though I'm really not familiar with the costs of studying 200 rats for two years, to say the least. On September 27 2012 00:04 elt wrote: Don't know why OP describes it as 'innovative'. Though I'm mostly only familiar with econometric studies the method pursued seems to be fairly standard. Long-term research. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On September 27 2012 00:54 ZeaL. wrote: It would be better to start a thread on GM/non-GM foods without this ridiculously biased paper in the OP. This is like starting a climate change thread with a paper from Exxon showing how climate change isn't real. Well If you want a GM/non-GM foods thread you can always start one. This one is about the paper, no matter how bad people think it is. As far as I am concerned I would never have found out how poor the paper is without this thread. | ||
|
Eilistraee
Denmark17 Posts
On a side note, overexpressing an enzyme with a modified substrate binding cavity to produce resistance will always make me suspicious. It's probably harmless and hopefully well tested. I will remain suspicious all the same. I believe that guilty until proven otherwise is the prudent course in the biotech industry. After all they are playing around with the biosynthesis pathway of phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. Not to mention their derivates. I would definately rather err on the side of caution when it comes to manipulating our stable food sources. That being said, I am definately a proponent of GMO's. I believe that they can be extremely beneficial and hope that they will gradually make an entry into society. I just hope the legislative panels will be able to tell the ingenious contructions from the bad ones. Because judging from all the bad science out there, there will be bad constructs and ideas along the way. | ||
|
harlock78
United States94 Posts
1) Lobbyists are zealously trying to discard this study. I would appreciate that people show the same scientific skepticism with studies just as bad and statistically insignificant showing GMOs are safe. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399 2) Said study has been published in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, which is definitely peer reviewed contrary to what some people seem to think, and even has a decent impact factor (impact factor=3). Curious how some journalists (typically in forbes or other pro big corporations newspaper) are eager to dismiss it. If it is fraudulent, it will be retracted. In any case, more higher quality studies will be conducted. 3) Why does Monsanto put restrictive end user agreements that limit independent research? from Wikipedia+ Show Spoiler + The value of current independent studies is considered by some to be problematic because, due to restrictive end-user agreements, independent researchers cannot obtain GM plants to study. Cornell University's Elson Shields, the spokesperson for a group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology".[294] Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While recognising that seed companies' intellectual property rights need to be protected, Scientific American calls the practice dangerous and has called for the restrictions on research in the end-user agreements to be lifted immediately and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to GM products for testing.[295] In February 2009, the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) agreed that they "would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops." This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future, but there is little optimism as to whether this agreement has the ability to "alter what has been a research environment rife with obstruction and suspicion."[294] Also http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/suppressing-research.html 4) Finally I can't believe in the so called US free market people would argue against labeling GMOs. Organic food is the de facto label, but it is not enough. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
I think they are one of the most exciting companies in the world, doing really amazing research. But the left has got a hard-on for them and GM-food in general, so hatred for inovation will continue. The facts are simple. We are going to make nature our bitch, and Monsanto is leading the charge in that frontier. Such a shame that the EU has such restrictions on GM-food. We are going to be lagging behind because of government, whilst America is letting inovation free and will reap the largest fruits (pun intended). | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On September 26 2012 22:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Obviously the more herbicide resistant superweeds in a crop the less the farmer will get for that crop. Then you've got the fact that farmers are now using freaking KEVLAR tyres because the GMO crops are so tough they are ripping through tyres that would normally last 5 seasons within one or two seasons! link : http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/02/gmo-crops-so-tough-that-farmers-are-turning-to-kevlar-tractor-ti/ So like you said about cost-benefit analysis-I think farmers will start moving away from GM crops because of the decreased yields, increased inputs like the new kevlar tyres and finally the fact that Europe pays less for GM crops than non-GM.I believe around $7 per tonne less for GM canola than GM free, thats if they even buy it as the people in Europe just don't want it. Herbicide resistant superweeds and destroyed tires(if the story even checks out) are not a property of GMO in general, just some specific instances. Non-GM organisms are just a subset of GM organisms  There is no special mark of GM organisms. If I gave you two organisms and withheld information about their history you have no way of recognizing which one is which accurately. The point is that creating other GM organisms that do not have those properties and are still better than "natural" ones is quite possible.The move away from GM (if any) will be shortlived as European customers are just plain stupid in this regard and the aversion to GM food is a fashion-like, not rational, choice that will go away instantly if money get tight. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On September 27 2012 00:40 Boblion wrote: I have read an interview of the guy who made the study and he says that Monsanto didn't make a stat test with 30 observations for this maize either. So basicly he is arguing that his work might be incomplete but that there are no better studies available for this variety. This just means that there is nothing known as his study is worthless. | ||
|
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
Again corn and tomatoes are heavily GM considering tomatoes naturally don't last long and corn has undergone genetic selection eons ago. Also can we please move away from this study? A test that is inconclusive has no value in discussion, imo. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On September 27 2012 02:38 zalz wrote: I love Monsanto. I think they are one of the most exciting companies in the world, doing really amazing research. But the left has got a hard-on for them and GM-food in general, so hatred for inovation will continue. The facts are simple. We are going to make nature our bitch, and Monsanto is leading the charge in that frontier. Such a shame that the EU has such restrictions on GM-food. We are going to be lagging behind because of government, whilst America is letting inovation free and will reap the largest fruits (pun intended). Monsanto is pretty ugly company and their products should be studied and banned if found lacking. The problem with the OP and other anti-GM people is not the fact that they want more checking of GM food and are criticizing, often deservedly, Monstanto and similar companies. Problem with them is that they generalize, out of ignorance mostly or fear maybe, properties of one GM product to all GM products. If we are testing long-term effects of GM products, non-GM products should be tested as rigorously as they are as likely to be dangerous. The only way how GM product can be more likely to be dangerous on its own is for the creator to actually want to create harmful product. In that case it is much easier to do with GM food. | ||
|
IceCube
Croatia1403 Posts
On September 27 2012 02:54 heroyi wrote: Meh GMO foods are nice to have. Again corn and tomatoes are heavily GM considering tomatoes naturally don't last long and corn has undergone genetic selection eons ago. Also can we please move away from this study? A test that is inconclusive has no value in discussion, imo. So your not interested in what your eating? | ||
|
Raggamuffinoo
United Kingdom117 Posts
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/10icuj/til_former_monsanto_vp_is_the_head_of_fda/ http://rense.com/general33/legal.htm that opinion is: that evil is at work | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On September 27 2012 02:29 harlock78 wrote: What to make of this? 1) Lobbyists are zealously trying to discard this study. I would appreciate that people show the same scientific skepticism with studies just as bad and statistically insignificant showing GMOs are safe. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399 2) Said study has been published in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, which is definitely peer reviewed contrary to what some people seem to think, and even has a decent impact factor (impact factor=3). Curious how some journalists (typically in forbes or other pro big corporations newspaper) are eager to dismiss it. If it is fraudulent, it will be retracted. In any case, more higher quality studies will be conducted. 3) Why does Monsanto put restrictive end user agreements that limit independent research? from Wikipedia+ Show Spoiler + The value of current independent studies is considered by some to be problematic because, due to restrictive end-user agreements, independent researchers cannot obtain GM plants to study. Cornell University's Elson Shields, the spokesperson for a group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology".[294] Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While recognising that seed companies' intellectual property rights need to be protected, Scientific American calls the practice dangerous and has called for the restrictions on research in the end-user agreements to be lifted immediately and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to GM products for testing.[295] In February 2009, the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) agreed that they "would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops." This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future, but there is little optimism as to whether this agreement has the ability to "alter what has been a research environment rife with obstruction and suspicion."[294] Also http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/suppressing-research.html 4) Finally I can't believe in the so called US free market people would argue against labeling GMOs. Organic food is the de facto label, but it is not enough. This post basically says it all. What is shocking is that most studies on the effect of GMO and the likes are just poor overall (short amount of time, small number of experimentation) and made by labs that are more or less linked to the group that made the product in the first place. I don't understand how people can think such studies are more "scientific" that the study discussed in this thread. Let's wait for other studies maybe ? But the real problem behind GMO is that it makes a lot of farmer completly dependant to crop that are made by one and only industry, especially in under-developped countries. | ||
|
Bellygareth
France512 Posts
However the analysis done by the GMO producers themselves which are the one that are currently done in the industry are considered unbiased ? I think it's normal to call for doubt here and conduct more studies (which is also the conclusion of the study's authors btw). The fact that people generally seem to dismiss it entirely in the name of science baffles me a bit. Science says that if experiments do not prove 100% the theory, and do not undisprove it, then you need to keep testing. It's not what happening when people say "stop testing, GMO". The correct answer should be "GMO are safe, let me do more experiments to show it". Also peer review should be done on this study for sure, but as for now it's mostly been journalist comments and a few fast comments by other scientists. It's not a proper peer review, which usually also let's the possibility for argumentation to the authors. It's not the case here. I think a 2 year study could use more than a few day analysis before being called "trash". Edit: for whitedog: I believe as I wrote here that the industrials have to conduct the tests themselves in most cases and provide the results to the FDA (for USA). It's standard procedure not only for GMOs, but also for drugs. In France it's the same I believe. | ||
|
harlock78
United States94 Posts
On September 27 2012 02:38 zalz wrote: I love Monsanto. I think they are one of the most exciting companies in the world, doing really amazing research. But the left has got a hard-on for them and GM-food in general, so hatred for inovation will continue. The facts are simple. We are going to make nature our bitch, and Monsanto is leading the charge in that frontier. Such a shame that the EU has such restrictions on GM-food. We are going to be lagging behind because of government, whilst America is letting inovation free and will reap the largest fruits (pun intended). If GMOs were introduced in a well controlled and responsible manner, most would be fine with it. GMOs and nuclear power are similar in a way. Lots of promises and lots of potential issues. GMOs are not a 1 dimensional issue. Don't forget that beside health, there are many other problems from environmental diversity destruction, patent and dependence issues etc... You can just dismiss any potential risk hoping that progress and science will fix it. Then you d better hope that a disaster will not occur before science can resolve the side problems it created itself (nuclear proliferation, global warming ...). Last thought. You can say: based on our understanding of molecular biology, GMOs should be safe. But you cannot say GMOs have been proved to be safe (most of these studies are bunk). The best you can say is there is no short term adverse effect. However that often assumes a coding gene in total isolation from the surrounding complex organism. If you introduce some cockroach gene into a tomato that supposedly protects from some parasite, you hope that the gene will just code that protein, not affect anything else, and that the protein itself has no adverse effect other than what you think it does. Hybridizing two breeds that have been part of our consumption in our evolutionary history is not the same thing as introducing genes from completely different species into another. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
If you want to avoid a few billion people starving this century from a Malthusian catastrophe, better stop worrying and learn to love the GM food. Or you can give the finger to Africa and Asia and tell them to figure out how to feed 2 billion more people by the end of the century on their own. Maybe "organic" farming can produce the yields necessary... oh wait it can't never mind. | ||
|
harlock78
United States94 Posts
On September 27 2012 04:10 DeepElemBlues wrote: 300 trillion (with a t) servings of GM food have gone down people's gullets and not a single person has gotten sick from it. Anti-GM advocates can't even find a properly done study to support their position and the explanation is "Oh well Monsanto didn't do theirs right either"? Monsanto Monsanto Monsanto, go hide under your beds it's the Monsanto Bogeyman. Some people in this thread might as well be dogs in the cage with Pavlov outside tossing in steaks with "Monsanto" grilled on them. Everything causes cancer. If cancer is the reason to ban GM foods, find a better reason. If you want to avoid a few billion people starving this century from a Malthusian catastrophe, better stop worrying and learn to love the GM food. Or you can give the finger to Africa and Asia and tell them to figure out how to feed 2 billion more people by the end of the century on their own. Maybe "organic" farming can produce the yields necessary... oh wait it can't never mind. Lol. Talk about Pavlovian reflex. Aside from the fact you have no idea who got sick for those 300 trillions of GM serving, do you really think the agro business care about Africa? About the UN/World bank study on effect of GM crops http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=46 | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
Aside from the fact you have no idea who got sick for those 300 trillions of GM serving, do you really think the agro business care about Africa? No one got sick. That's the point. No one. Who cares whether the agro business "really cares" about Africa or not? What does that have to do with raising crop yields to meet increased population? Absolutely nothing? Yes, it has absolutely zero relevance. Pointing out that the agro business doesn't raise crops out of the goodness of their hearts is entirely irrelevant. People are either going to get fed or they're going to starve to death. That is what is relevant. Why would you think that whether agro business cares or not has anything to do with anything? You going to complain about literally every business in existence because they don't "care" personally about you? Latest UN/World bank study on effect of GM crops http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=46 I hope something from 4 years ago isn't the "latest." Of course, it isn't, and opinions are widespread about it. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=GM meta study#hl=en&safe=off&gl=us&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=GM crop yield&oq=GM crop yield&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.1.25625.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.p5qPQXFDT_4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c16a98befd580736&biw=1280&bih=617 | ||
| ||
