General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI succumbed to peer pressure today...
and I feel dirty because I Fucking Love Science
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/11/retraction-gm-crop-cancer-study.html
I participated in the March Against Monsanto
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)did you march? many were cheering over the interwaves
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)i jumped the gun..
science is an art, of course.. always subject to
new directions and creativity from within itself.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)Us elites will never starve as a result of our food snobbery
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/24176/
The commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops has continued to occur at a rapid rate, with important changes in both the overall level of adoption and impact occurring in 2011. This annual updated analysis shows that there have been very significant net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $19.8 billion in 2011 and $98.2 billion for the 16 year period (in nominal terms). The majority (51.2%) of these gains went to farmers in developing countries. GM technology have also made important contributions to increasing global production levels of the four main crops, having added 110 million tonnes and 195 million tonnes respectively, to the global production of soybeans and maize since the introduction of the technology in the mid-1990s.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)They still strong-arm farmers, ignore the fact that GM crops lead to greater use of pesticides and so on and so on.
Your conscience is spotless.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)There is so much wrong with the experimental design that the conclusion is inescapable that the investigators intended to get a spurious, preordained result. Here are a few of the criticisms that have been raised by the scientific community:
the investigators used a strain of rats that were bred to develop tumors as they aged (a detail they failed to disclose). Significantly, mortality rates and tumor incidence in all experimental groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats. Therefore, the claim that the genetically engineered corn component of the diet or the herbicide caused the tumors is insupportable.
there is no documentation of the rats food intake, which strongly affects the incidence of tumors in this strain;
the experiment included 180 rats (9 groups of 20) fed the genetically engineered or herbicide-containing diets (the treated rats), while only 20 rats were fed a standard (control) diet. Both common sense and a rudimentary understanding of statistics tell you that even if there were no actual differences between the groups, the greater numbers of animals in the pooled treated groups increases the odds that one of the treated rats would die first (one of the parameters reported in the paper);
the statistical methods employed were unconventional and appeared to be selected specifically in order to give a certain result. Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at Kings College London, called the treatment of data a statistical fishing trip;
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)I agree that the study is bad. Let me repeat: I agree that the study is bad.
But, as I said, that does nothing to suggest they are not evil bastards.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)It's not "We don't know what they contain and what they might do" it's that they an patent their seeds and then let nature take it's course, then they can legally sue anyone for everything they have. That's the real danger GMOs present.
You did the right thing, wish I could have gotten out there.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)We should be better than that.
Otherwise we are no different than climate change deniers.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)rucky
(35,211 posts)Not journal-worthy, I suspect.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)jumping to that conclusion?
I did, because I Fucking Love Science.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gm+corn
How is not looking into this any different than a climate change denier looking no further than a Daily Mail article claiming therte has been no warming in the past 15 years.
rucky
(35,211 posts)Bonx
(2,053 posts)I wasn't that familiar, and this thread got me looking.
Seems the crux of the issue is: "critics say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment." (C&P from a USA Today article).
There is a lot of passion, but is there real science there on this claim yet ?
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)The EFSA concluded that the researchers, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen in France, failed to use enough rats in the study to draw statistically valid conclusions about whether the GM food or glyphosate they were fed caused extra cancers compared with control rats. Furthermore, says the authority, the researchers relied on strains of rats that frequently develop tumours spontaneously, especially in old age.
"Conclusions cannot be drawn on the difference in tumour incidence between the treatment groups on the basis of the design, the analysis and the results as reported," says the review of the study. The same conclusion was reached independently by six national food safety bodies also asked to review the study, from Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy and Belgium.
The EFSA and the panels say that Séralini used a fifth as many rats as would be required for standard, internationally accepted toxicology testing, making his conclusions statistically unreliable. "Given the spontaneous occurrence of tumours in Sprague-Dawley rats, the low number of rats reported in the Séralini publications is insufficient to distinguish between specific treatment effects and chance occurrences of tumours in rats," says the authority.
The EFSA found the NK603 maize strain to be safe in 2003. In its report this week, it declared that there is no need to re-evaluate the safety of the maize or the herbicide.
Séralini's backersclaim that he's the victim of a "covert war" orchestrated by supporters of GM technology to discredit criticism. "Behind the cohort of academic titles [of critics] that are listed is a hidden 'biotech sphere' which brings together biotechnology researchers, regulatory policy experts and representatives of industry," says a statement from CRIIGEN, the France-based Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, which opposes GM crops and supported Séralini's study.
The study is the second in recent years by Séralini to assess the safety of NK603. His first study was also critised. New Scientist wrote at the time: "Independent toxicologists contacted by New Scientist said Séralini's analysis overplays the importance of minor variations that most experienced toxicologists would consider to be random background noise."
Bonx
(2,053 posts)jazzimov
(1,456 posts)there is a lot of controversial and contradictory studies on this subject. They are all suspect, both pro and con. There is no definitive study, at least not yet.
However, let's look at the primary company producing GMO foods - Monsanto. They are definitely evil. Their practices have shown that they will stop at nothing to make a profit.
I suspect that they would spend lots of money falsifying data and attacking other studies.
I believe that GMO foods can offer great accomplishments. However, I do not trust Monsanto.