5 ms·

I'm totally pro science by default. But I really have huge issues with GMO foods. The patenting is worrisome. The seeds are more resistant than natural occurrin

I'm totally pro science by default. But I really have huge issues with GMO foods. The patenting is worrisome. The seeds are more resistant than natural occurring seeds and they tend to take over and annihilate other species (Google what's happening with the corn crops in Mexico) and then ponder if a scenario like what happened in Finland in the 70s with the potatoes (they were just farming one kind of crop and it was infected with virus) would happen to a GMO crop (thankfully we have Svalbard Global Seed Vault now). One other issue is the lack of oversight - the EU was fighting for 12 years to be able to scientifically test and publish the results of feeding Monsanto GMO foods to rats. After this unstable battle, they finally published the results and they were not good: rats fed with GMO food had developed tumors that were as big as their original size. And worst of all, we are running a massive world scale experiment where the large majority of the the world is feed with GMO food without any prior proof of its long term safety.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
The other issue is whether we can trust their studies. They're notorious about fraudulent data to push their agenda. I remember reading about all the bribery happening at every level thinking it's probably overstated. There'd be way more whistleblowers or something. Then I see something like the $10,000 policy referenced below: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/05/new-england-journal-medicine-increasingly-targeted-critics/9H3JFKzTNJpCsOQqIUNXJP/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/05/new-england-jou... The original article I read on that said they basically couldn't find enough people taking less than $10,000 from the institutions whose science or products they were reviewing. I'm thinking, "Holy shit! Almost all the "independent" researchers are getting enough bribes to buy a car. How is their validation in any way trustworthy?" I had to stop there. Especially watching Monsanto's games with seeds and such plus history of hiding health dangers of stuff they intend to sell with bogus studies. I don't trust GMO's or about any highly-profitable thing coming out of such organizations until I see what they do to a lot of people over a long period of time.
- alixaxel 10y ago
  Exaclty, 90 day studies are not even enough. they are clearly designed to pass: http://www.gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-this-study-now/ http://www.gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-this-study-now/
  - DominoTree 10y ago
    We've been using mutagenesis (through radiation or carcinogens) in food crops to introduce random, unspecific genetic changes for many decades hoping to get lucky and make better crops, with no ill effects. These crops are approved under USDA organics standards. Now, when we specifically modify one or two quantifiable genes in an organism (instead of potentially thousands through mutagenesis or breeding), everyone loses their minds. Our bodies are built to process DNA that we consume without adding it to our genome. This is why we can eat a steak without suddenly inheriting bovine genes. For a time, DNA can be found in our bodies from things we consume, but a fragment of DNA is not the same thing as a functional gene, and even if it were, it'd have to actively put itself in our cells somehow, and replicate. A basic high school understanding of genetics is really all you need to understand that these breeding techniques are largely the same as what happens in the wild and what we've been doing for ages, if not actually safer since they're far more controlled.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      "We've been using mutagenesis (through radiation or carcinogens) in food crops to introduce random, unspecific genetic changes for many decades hoping to get lucky and make better crops, with no ill effects." Ill effects in general have been going up for decades. Isolating what was or wasn't contributing to that is a hard problem. I'd be interested in studies that compared large numbers of people using crops with and without that property. Both should also avoid as many carcinogens as possible and eat healthy in general to reduce those variables. Know any like this which weren't tied to a specific, profit-hungry corporation? I'd be interested in reading it. "A basic high school understanding of genetics is really all you need to understand that these breeding techniques are largely the same as what happens in the wild" My info on this subject is way outdated as I studied it around 10 years ago. That's why I'm not talking about the biotech or risks themselves. However, that quote jumped out because they were using retroviruses or something back when I studied it. Not just selective breeding or limited effects of background radiation. The risk analysis is necessarily different. Do you have a list of what methods they use today with descriptions laypersons can follow? Especially how they address any risks in each? I'm long overdue for an update on this topic.
DominoTree 10y ago
Seralini and his "studies" are highly discredited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair The study you refer to, "rats fed with GMO food had developed tumors that were as big as their original size" used Sprague-Dawley rats, typically chosen in lab studies because the breed is known to quickly develop massive tumors regardless of other factors. The results in this study were not statistically significant, and were drawn from a sample size way too small, on a type of animal that is known to develop tumors on its own. Furthermore, the numbers in the study actually showed that male rats who consumed glyphosate in their drinking water (because simultaneously testing multiple variables on groups of like 5 rats makes sense, right?) actually lived longer than those which did not, and all rats in the study grew massive tumors, even the control group. If you're going to base an opinion on "science", please make sure you actually read the study and have enough knowledge to determine whether it's bullshit or not. Thanks, Someone who actually is "pro science"
- alixaxel 10y ago
  It's still a scientific study, or an attempt at it at least. The way to go, is not to dismiss it because it was retracted under dubious circumstances but rather to have several third parties replicate the study correcting the flaws that were found in the original one. If you are curious why I said dubious circumstances, read https://www.rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/.
  - DominoTree 10y ago
    Russia Today is a dubious source itself. https://www.rt.com/usa/alien-bird-deaths-cia-un/ https://www.rt.com/usa/alien-bird-deaths-cia-un/ Here's an article they published about aliens and the CIA causing the deaths of migratory birds by spraying "chemtrails". The fact of the matter is that GMOs contain the same genetic material we already consume on a daily basis. We understand how it impacts our bodies (it pretty much doesn't) and there is no distinction between genetic material from a GM organism versus a conventional organism. It's chemically and functionally identical (derived from the exact same nucleotide bases and the genes already exist elsewhere with the same function), and has the same impact on your body. This is something that we've studied for a very long time, and understand fairly well.
walkingolof 10y ago
Crops have been genetically modified by man for thousands of years, first by selection, beginning of last century by putting a specimen infront of gamma source and hoping for the best, and now with specific modification of genes, but this is irrelevant really. What Greenpeace et al should fight is shady business ethics, there is the real danger.
rrego 10y ago
Monocropping really is tangential from whether or not a food is a GMO. As you pointed out, this is not a new phenomenon. The rat tumor study is also not convincing (to scientists). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair As far as I've seen, there have been quite a few studies on GMOs. Though, it seems like an odd classification to study since GMOs are all very different. There's alot of FUD in this post
- alixaxel 10y ago
  Certainly a lot of FUD on my part - nothing wrong with that, that how scientific progress should be validated IMO). "The bizarre reports come only six months after Elsevier created a special new position, Associate Editor for Biotechnology (i.e. GMO), and filled it with a former Monsanto employee who worked for the giant Monsanto front-organization, the International Life Sciences Institute, which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations. Sound like something wrong with this picture?" https://www.rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/

nickpsecurity 10y ago

The other issue is whether we can trust their studies. They're notorious about fraudulent data to push their agenda. I remember reading about all the bribery happening at every level thinking it's probably overstated. There'd be way more whistleblowers or something. Then I see something like the $10,000 policy referenced below: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/05/new-england-journal-medicine-increasingly-targeted-critics/9H3JFKzTNJpCsOQqIUNXJP/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/05/new-england-jou... The original article I read on that said they basically couldn't find enough people taking less than $10,000 from the institutions whose science or products they were reviewing. I'm thinking, "Holy shit! Almost all the "independent" researchers are getting enough bribes to buy a car. How is their validation in any way trustworthy?" I had to stop there. Especially watching Monsanto's games with seeds and such plus history of hiding health dangers of stuff they intend to sell with bogus studies. I don't trust GMO's or about any highly-profitable thing coming out of such organizations until I see what they do to a lot of people over a long period of time.

alixaxel 10y ago
Exaclty, 90 day studies are not even enough. they are clearly designed to pass: http://www.gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-this-study-now/ http://www.gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-this-study-now/
- DominoTree 10y ago
  We've been using mutagenesis (through radiation or carcinogens) in food crops to introduce random, unspecific genetic changes for many decades hoping to get lucky and make better crops, with no ill effects. These crops are approved under USDA organics standards. Now, when we specifically modify one or two quantifiable genes in an organism (instead of potentially thousands through mutagenesis or breeding), everyone loses their minds. Our bodies are built to process DNA that we consume without adding it to our genome. This is why we can eat a steak without suddenly inheriting bovine genes. For a time, DNA can be found in our bodies from things we consume, but a fragment of DNA is not the same thing as a functional gene, and even if it were, it'd have to actively put itself in our cells somehow, and replicate. A basic high school understanding of genetics is really all you need to understand that these breeding techniques are largely the same as what happens in the wild and what we've been doing for ages, if not actually safer since they're far more controlled.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "We've been using mutagenesis (through radiation or carcinogens) in food crops to introduce random, unspecific genetic changes for many decades hoping to get lucky and make better crops, with no ill effects." Ill effects in general have been going up for decades. Isolating what was or wasn't contributing to that is a hard problem. I'd be interested in studies that compared large numbers of people using crops with and without that property. Both should also avoid as many carcinogens as possible and eat healthy in general to reduce those variables. Know any like this which weren't tied to a specific, profit-hungry corporation? I'd be interested in reading it. "A basic high school understanding of genetics is really all you need to understand that these breeding techniques are largely the same as what happens in the wild" My info on this subject is way outdated as I studied it around 10 years ago. That's why I'm not talking about the biotech or risks themselves. However, that quote jumped out because they were using retroviruses or something back when I studied it. Not just selective breeding or limited effects of background radiation. The risk analysis is necessarily different. Do you have a list of what methods they use today with descriptions laypersons can follow? Especially how they address any risks in each? I'm long overdue for an update on this topic.

DominoTree 10y ago

Seralini and his "studies" are highly discredited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair The study you refer to, "rats fed with GMO food had developed tumors that were as big as their original size" used Sprague-Dawley rats, typically chosen in lab studies because the breed is known to quickly develop massive tumors regardless of other factors. The results in this study were not statistically significant, and were drawn from a sample size way too small, on a type of animal that is known to develop tumors on its own. Furthermore, the numbers in the study actually showed that male rats who consumed glyphosate in their drinking water (because simultaneously testing multiple variables on groups of like 5 rats makes sense, right?) actually lived longer than those which did not, and all rats in the study grew massive tumors, even the control group. If you're going to base an opinion on "science", please make sure you actually read the study and have enough knowledge to determine whether it's bullshit or not. Thanks, Someone who actually is "pro science"

alixaxel 10y ago
It's still a scientific study, or an attempt at it at least. The way to go, is not to dismiss it because it was retracted under dubious circumstances but rather to have several third parties replicate the study correcting the flaws that were found in the original one. If you are curious why I said dubious circumstances, read https://www.rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/.
- DominoTree 10y ago
  Russia Today is a dubious source itself. https://www.rt.com/usa/alien-bird-deaths-cia-un/ https://www.rt.com/usa/alien-bird-deaths-cia-un/ Here's an article they published about aliens and the CIA causing the deaths of migratory birds by spraying "chemtrails". The fact of the matter is that GMOs contain the same genetic material we already consume on a daily basis. We understand how it impacts our bodies (it pretty much doesn't) and there is no distinction between genetic material from a GM organism versus a conventional organism. It's chemically and functionally identical (derived from the exact same nucleotide bases and the genes already exist elsewhere with the same function), and has the same impact on your body. This is something that we've studied for a very long time, and understand fairly well.

walkingolof 10y ago

Crops have been genetically modified by man for thousands of years, first by selection, beginning of last century by putting a specimen infront of gamma source and hoping for the best, and now with specific modification of genes, but this is irrelevant really. What Greenpeace et al should fight is shady business ethics, there is the real danger.

rrego 10y ago

Monocropping really is tangential from whether or not a food is a GMO. As you pointed out, this is not a new phenomenon. The rat tumor study is also not convincing (to scientists). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair As far as I've seen, there have been quite a few studies on GMOs. Though, it seems like an odd classification to study since GMOs are all very different. There's alot of FUD in this post

alixaxel 10y ago
Certainly a lot of FUD on my part - nothing wrong with that, that how scientific progress should be validated IMO). "The bizarre reports come only six months after Elsevier created a special new position, Associate Editor for Biotechnology (i.e. GMO), and filled it with a former Monsanto employee who worked for the giant Monsanto front-organization, the International Life Sciences Institute, which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations. Sound like something wrong with this picture?" https://www.rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/