Whoo boy. This sounds like a familiar climate episode. Andrew Revkin tips me to this retraction of a paper that got screaming headlines worldwide, and says this along with the photo. (Warning don’t click “continue reading” while eating Thanksgiving dinner).
Yes, I wonder.
Retraction Watch writes:
A heavily criticized study of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats is being retracted — one way or another.
The paper — by Gilles Seralini and colleagues — was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology last year. There have been calls for retraction since then, along with other criticism and a lengthy exchange of letters in the journal. Meanwhile, the paper has been cited 28 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and the French National Assembly (their lower house of Parliament) held a long hearing on the paper last year, with Seralini and other scientists testifying.
Now, as reported in the French media, the editor of the journal, A. Wallace Hayes, has sent Seralini a letter saying that the paper will be retracted if Seralini does not agree to withdraw it.
The language in the letter seems quite familiar to WUWT and CA readers. This would never have been found out if not for the raw data. Note the language about it:
Very shortly after the publication of this article, the journal received Letters to the Editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, and even allegations of fraud. Many of these letters called upon the editors of the journal to retract the paper. According to the journal’s standard practice, these letters, as well as the letters in support of the findings, were published along with a response from the authors. Due to the nature of the concerns raised about this paper, the Editor-in-Chief examined all aspects of the peer review process and requested permission from the corresponding author to review the raw data. The request to view raw data is not often made; however, it is in accordance with the journal’s policy that authors of submitted manuscripts must be willing to provide the original data if so requested. The corresponding author agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of the corresponding author in this matter, and commends him for his commitment to the scientific process.
Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer-review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.
More here
Need for the raw data, low sample size numbers, normal variability, cherry picking specific subjects?
Sounds like Yamalian dendroclimatology:
They even have a ranting demanding scientist to go along with it:
Seralini — whom, as we note, tried to get reporters to sign a non-disclosure agreement when the study was first being released, a move Ivan called an outrageous abuse of the embargo system designed to turn reporters into stenographers — rejected Hayes’ findings, according toLe Figaro. And GMWatch called Hayes’ decision “illicit, unscientific, and unethical.”
Hmmm, now who does that remind you of?
IMHO, science by zealotry never advances truth.
=============================================================
UPDATE: Elsevier issues a press release from Cambridge, MA, on Thanksgiving Day even…
Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology
“Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” by Gilles Eric Séralini et al. has been retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology
Cambridge, MA, November 28, 2013Elsevier announces that the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” by Gilles Eric Séralini et al. has been retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.
The journal has issued the following retraction statement:
http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology
I don’t worry about small doses of poisons. A little hormesis can be good for you.
Is there a distributor for organic deadly nightshade?
This article seems relevant.
I see no case against labelling. The market should decide, and that requires labelling.
I also dont see why we need to go to such ludicrous measures as GM for something as trivial as Glyphosate resistant corn, plant a field with corn, spray it with glyphosate, select the survivors , repeat. Have to say that this process works well on my weeds, of which I have a well established glyphosate resistant crop.
By finding a quote that neglects mention of those GM bacteria (lying by omission), referring only to some vague “contaminants”, Pamela continues to pretend that the genetically engineered L-Trypotophan disaster was something else.
Then she tries to shift blame for the tragedy onto the neo-hippies and their passion for a free market for dietary supplements…
—The potential serious side-affects of the unregulated manufacturing and importation [of] free-for-all of supplements seem to breeze by the watermelon heads.—
Yet when the regulated manufacturing and regulated prescribing of FDA-approved VIOXX left
around half a million Americans actually dead–not potentially at risk of something vague but scary happening–Pamela didn’t complain. Few people did. Few people really care.
I’m pretty sure that acetaminophen (paracetamol) kills more people than dietary supplements do, Pamela.. In fact, a dietary supplement (L-cysteine or NAC) is the antidote for acetaminophen poisoning.
This study on 200 rats, with 1 control group of 20, plus 9 test groups of 20 rats, looks pretty reasonable, compared to say, this designed-to-fail study on only 5 near-dead humans with late-state brain tumors – a study that was published and never retracted:
http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/31/31ra34.abstract
The study on 5 humans didn’t threaten a powerful U.S. corporation, so nobody kicked up a fuss, demanded retraction, or called the study “bogus.”
Doug;
No, I was referring to the observation that one reaps such a wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Re: Bob L. (at 4:13pm today) — “I see no case against labeling. The market should decide, and that requires labeling.”
A. To address your second point first, in a free market, one does not require labeling. It is allowed now. That is, instead of a socialist policy that requires all to label, those who want to label are free to do so.
(in tiny print somewhere…. “no,itisn’tprovenbutdoitjustincase)
Lots of people already fall for the “organic” (and/or the junk science about pesticides or herbicides) scam. Let them fall for the “GMO-free” scam (out of ignorance of the science of gene modification), too. It is a free country.
B. There is a very good case against forced labeling: liberty. (See the Constitution of the United States of America and relevant case law) If I don’t want to support junk science by putting that misleading term on my can of beans, I have the freedom to not do that — just because I am that sovereign entity under Natural Law, a Person.
Further, the labeling is part of an anti-free market farming/food processing propaganda campaign. You may say, “Well, so what if there are junk labels; just ignore them.” The labels are only part of the picture. The l1es told in “public education campaigns” about what the label falsely implies will fool enough of the gullible, ignorant, public that the market share of the non-government-approved product will dwindle to the point that those farmers/processors go out of business. No one should be forced to either: sell what the government tells one to sell or go out of business. That is not liberty, that is tyranny, a.k.a., SOCIALISM.
Dear Bob, L.,
Please forgive my fervent tone (if I had watered down my writing style above I would not have been completely candid and I am big on TRUTH). My comments are largely directed not at you but at those who are doing all they can, in as many directions as they can, to destroy liberty. I remain your ally for truth in science!
And, thanks for listening (I hope),
Janice
****************************************
And, yes, Zeke, I too voted NO on 522. GO, FREEDOM! And truth.
Dear WUWT allies for truth — my 9:38pm comment is in mod-er-ation at this moment. If you see it, if you know what the verboten words were, would you please tell me? I wish there was a list of them available to review. Is there is one? Where?
Thanks!
Janice
Brian H says: November 29, 2013 at 9:03 pm “Doug; [ … ]” I wondered, but used your bot mot as a springboard to my sarcastic dismissal; there’s a sucker for statistics born every minute.
I’m reading Popper’s criticism of Hegel’s dialectic, and that above seems a fine synthesis.
http://gmoseralini.org/professor-seralini-replies-to-fct-journal-over-study-retraction/
The reply from the Seralini.
Professor Seralini replies to FCT journal over study retraction
Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team have responded to the letter from A. Wallace Hayes, editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), telling Prof Séralini that he intended to retract his study on NK603 maize and Roundup.
Here’s the retraction notice from Elsevier, the publisher of FCT: http://prn.to/1euTk2W
Response by Prof GE Seralini and colleagues to A. Wallace Hayes, editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology
28 Nov 2013
We, authors of the paper published in FCT more than one year ago on the effects of Roundup and a Roundup-tolerant GMO (Séralini et al., 2012), and having answered to critics in the same journal (Séralini et al., 2013), do not accept as scientifically sound the debate on the fact that these papers are inconclusive because of the rat strain or the number of rats used. We maintain our conclusions. We already published some answers to the same critics in your Journal, which have not been answered (Séralini et al., 2013).
Rat strain
The same strain is used by the US national toxicology program to study the carcinogenicity and the chronic toxicity of chemicals (King-Herbert et al., 2010). Sprague Dawley rats are used routinely in such studies for toxicological and tumour-inducing effects, including those 90-day studies by Monsanto as basis for the approval of NK603 maize and other GM crops (Sprague Dawley rats did not came from Harlan but from Charles-River) (Hammond et al., 2004; Hammond et al., 2006a; Hammond et al., 2006b).
A brief, quick and still preliminary literature search of peer-reviewed journals revealed that Sprague Dawley rats were used in 36-month studies by (Voss et al., 2005) or in 24-month studies by (Hack et al., 1995), (Minardi et al., 2002), (Klimisch et al., 1997), (Gamez et al., 2007).Some of these studies have been published in Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Number of rats, OECD guidelines
OECD guidelines (408 for 90 day study, 452 chronic toxicity and 453 combined carcinogenicity/chronic toxicity study) always asked for 20 animals per group (both in 1981 and 2009 guidelines) although the measurement of biochemical parameters can be performed on 10 rats, as indicated. We did not perform a carcinogenesis study, which would not have been adopted at first, but a long-term chronic full study, 10 rats are sufficient for that at a biochemical level according to norms and we have measured such a number of parameters! The disturbance of sexual hormones or other parameters are sufficient in themselves in our case to interpret a serious effect after one year. The OPLS-DA statistical method we published is one of the best adapted. For tumours and deaths, the chronology and number of tumours per animal have to be taken into account. Any sign should be regarded as important for a real risk study. Monsanto itself measured only 10 rats of the same strain per group on 20 to conclude that the same GM maize was safe after 3 months (Hammond et al., 2004).
The statistical analysis should not be done with historical data first, the comparison is falsified, thus 50 rats per group is useless
The use of historical data falsifies health risk assessments because the diet is contaminated by dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (Schecter et al., 1996), mercury (Weiss et al., 2005), cadmium and chromium among other heavy metals in a range of doses that altered mouse liver and lung gene expression and confounds genomic analyses (Kozul et al., 2008). They also contained pesticides or plasticizers released by cages or from water sources (Howdeshell et al., 2003). Historical data also come from rats potentially fed on GMOs, some animal pellets in the world do indicate that. All that corresponds to the contamination levels for which we have detected some effects in our treated rats versus appropriate controls.
2-year historical data mammary fibroadenoma rate from Charles River SD females ranged from 13 to 62% (Giknis, 2004). We obtain a lot less in our controls, the real comparators, a lot more in treated rats. This makes our results significant, like for deaths.
Double standards
A factual comparative analysis of the rat feeding trial by the Séralini’s group and the Monsanto trials clearly reveals that if the Séralini experiments are considered to be insufficient to demonstrate harm, logically, it must be the same for those carried out by Monsanto to prove safety. Basically, all previous studies finding adverse effects of GE crops have been treated by regulators with the attitude: only those studies showing adverse effects receive a rigorous evaluation of their experimental and statistical methods, while those that claim proof of safety are taken at face value. All studies that reported no adverse effects were accepted as proof of safety regardless of these manifest (but deemed irrelevant) deficiencies of their methods.
The review by (Snell et al., 2012) illustrates this issue. In the abstract, the authors state “Results from all the 24 studies [reviewed] do not suggest any health hazards […]” – taking all those studies at face value. Yet in their review, the authors find numerous weaknesses of similar or greater severity [than those] raised for the Séralini group’s paper. For example, of the 24 studies they evaluated 16 (67% of all studies) did not mention using the isogenic line as control (interpreted as having not used them), many did not describe the methods in any detail, and according to the reviewers had other deficiencies too.
FCT should retract the Hammond et al. paper on Roundup tolerant maize for all these reasons, published for Monsanto’s authorization, or consider that each of these papers is part of the scientific debate.
This thread is a keeper. Thanks for all the great information.
It seems to me that labelling should not be required for foods containing GM products and we should just assume that they contain GM much as we do with , say, water or gluten. People who think there is a market for GM free foods should use that fact as a marketing tool and label their products as GM free.
GM is a big scary monster to a minority. They should be able to find foods that suit their fears while the rest of us just get on with living.
I have always felt the anti-GMO camp is less concerned with health than they are with just hating one more big, successful company. It’s a shame that this anti-corporate ideology has such a hold on a part of our society but I suppose that is the price we pay for having so much to be thankful for already.
Happy Thanksgiving Wutters, it’s a wonderful world.
Another take on the entire retraction incident from greenmedinfo (albeit not a impartial source). They contend Monsanto lobbying led to the creation of a new editor position at the journal that was filled by an individual with industry ties. This ultimately drove the retraction, they walk through the back story at the link. Interesting reading.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/monsanto-targets-heart-science-goodman-affair?page=1
Twain was actually referring to “something fascinating about Science”, so the quip is even more a propos.
http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Twain_science.html
Great summary of the L tryptophan issue. Again, L tryptophan has a long record of being a safe chemical found in many foods. Because of its utility as an alternative to stronger prescription meds, there was quite the rush to make it into tablet form and sell it as a supplement. Natural bacteria produce this enzyme but at a relatively slow rate when compared to the demand. So short cuts and less safe methods were developed to make the bacteria produce it at a higher rate. A company in Japan engineered a bacteria (fiddled with its DNA) so that L tryptophan was being produced at a much higher rate, allowing this company to capture a big part of the market. Problem was the over-charged bacteria also made L typotophan molecules bind together in pairs, producing a toxic affect when ingested by humans.
So at least let’s be exact. It was the bacteria that was genetically modified, not the L tryptophan molecule.
http://www.nemsn.org/Articles/summary_tryptophan%20Fagan.htm
this story is not over:
2 pages: 29 Nov (updated 30 Nov): Forbes: Jon Entine: Seralini Threatens Lawsuit In Wake Of Retraction Of Infamous GMO Cancer Rat Study
(Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication and STATS (Statistical Assessment Service) at George Mason University.)
Claire Robinson, editor of the that site and the anti-GMO activist site GM Watch, blasted the retraction announcement as “illicit, unscientific, and unethical,” the first salvo in what will no doubt be a vigorous defense of the study in the weeks ahead. “Hayes’ decision will tarnish the reputation of FCT and will increase public mistrust of science in general and genetically modified foods in particular,” she wrote.
Robinson also went after Richard Goodman, who runs the AllergenOnline database at the University of Nebraska. Goodman is an internationally respected expert on allergies and the health effects of GM foods—but also a former Monsanto scientist. He was brought in by the FTC earlier this year to clean up the journal’s peer review process. As Robinson acknowledges, “there is no proof that Goodman was responsible for the retraction of Prof Séralini’s study.”
Goodman declined to comment directly, but numerous people have confirmed to me that he was not involved in the evaluation process and was not even aware of what if any action the editor had been contemplating. With one of the central pillars of the anti-GMO industry now officially discredited, expect more Robinson-like personal attacks in the days and weeks ahead…
Robinson also claimed that the retraction violated scientific guidelines laid out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE guidelines state that the grounds for a journal to retract a paper are: (1) clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error; (2) Plagiarism or redundant publication; or (3) Unethical research. Perhaps fearing legal action, Hayes wrote in his letter that the independent examination of Séralini’s raw data showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation” and nothing “incorrect.”
Robinson’s rebuke highlights just how badly Hayes and Elsevier has mishandled this entire affair…
The entire episode, including the oddly worded retraction statement, is a black eye for the beleaguered journal and Elsevier. “Their motive now appears to be to deny culpability, protect your reputation, and immunize yourself against lawsuits instead of do the right thing,” I was emailed by Bruce Chassy, professor emeritus and retired chair at the Department of Food Science at the University of Illinois. “The narrowness of the retraction overlooks many other deficiencies and weakens their case in the lawsuit that will inevitably follow.”…
Rumors abound that Séralini is already in contact with legal counsel and is set to pursue this issue in court, and perhaps in multiple courts. The disgraced scientist, in an attempt to rehabilitate his reputation, could also turn around and submit the article in its current or revised form to a third-tier journal, including the many pay-for-play publications that cater to activist scientists.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/11/29/notorious-seralini-gmo-cancer-rat-study-retracted-ugly-legal-battle-looms/
anything from Elsevier deserves a sceptical appraisal:
Wikipedia: Elsevier
Criticism and controversies…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier
have been trying to find the following which i recalled on an Elsevier page way back, but it’s been removed:
Feb 2012: AustralianClimateMadness:
from comment by Baldrick: …
The ‘scientific’ journal New Scientist is published by a company by the name of Reed Elsevier, of which Elsevier is a subsidiary company.
Elsevier proudly boasts on it’s website:
“We are also proud to announce that many Elsevier Editors and Editorial Board members have served significant roles as authors and reviewers for the 2007 and three previous IPCC reports conducted since 1990. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, is an Editorial Board Member of (our) Energy Policy and an Associate Editor for the Encylopedia of Energy.”
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2012/02/23/new-scientist-wants-indoctrination-not-balance-in-climate-education/
following is the blog of Professor Rob Elliott, an academic economist, with an interest in all things international and environmental..
…currently a Professor of International and Environmental Economics at the University of Birmingham..
Jan 2008: IPCC member articles for free from Elsevier
From the inbox:
We are also proud to announce that many Elsevier Editors and Editorial Board members have served significant roles as authors and reviewers for the 2007 and three previous IPCC reports conducted since 1990. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, is an Editorial Board Member of Energy Policy and an Associate Editor for the Encylopedia of Energy. View Dr. Pachauri’s Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech.
In recognition of the importance of the work of the IPCC, we are pleased to offer free access to selected articles on climate change written by members of the IPCC and published by Elsevier LINK
http://globalisation-and-the-environment.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/ipcc-member-articles-for-free-from.html
GMO industry has long been a Stakeholder in CAGW – saving the planet & all that jazz!
Monsanto: 2012 Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Report LINK
The topic of sustainability has taken center stage around the world and has driven the attention and focus of a growing number of powerful voices and interests around the world. We recognize that we have a place in these discussions and a commitment to be a leading corporate citizen…
You will see this year we took some significant steps to further embed sustainability in our business and to increase public awareness of our environmental, societal and governance programs and performance…
This process built upon and enhanced our ongoing stakeholder engagement efforts and is helping define our business strategy…
Together, I’m convinced we can help farmers achieve more and help all of us and our world in the process.
http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/corporate-sustainability-report.aspx
i just followed up my earlier comment re
2 pages: 29 Nov: Forbes: Jon Entine: Seralini Threatens Lawsuit In Wake Of Retraction Of Infamous GMO Cancer Rat Study
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/11/29/notorious-seralini-gmo-cancer-rat-study-retracted-ugly-legal-battle-looms/
but just noticed it is still in moderation whereas the followup comment has gone through!
It seems to me that Anthony is pretty quick to jump to a conclusion on this complicated controversy. Sasha’s comments above are worth consideration and some of Pamela Gray’s seem to just be reading off the label of her generic roundup.
http://rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/
Then, out of the blue, in May 2013, six months after the Seralini study release, Elsevier announced that it had created a new position, ‘Associate Editor for Biotechnology’. The person they hired to fill it was Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who in addition was with the Monsanto pro-GMO lobby organization, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations.
As one critical scientific website posed the obvious ethical sham of hiring Monsanto people to control GMO publications, “Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science?”
Then on November 24, 2013, six months after Goodman took control of GMO issues at the Journal, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology reportedly decided to retract the study by the team of Professor Séralini.
The reasons for the extraordinary retraction a full year after publishing are in violation of the guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member. According to the guidelines, the only grounds for a journal to retract a paper are:
• Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error;
• Plagiarism or redundant publication;
• Unethical research.
Séralini’s paper meets none of these criteria and Hayes admits as much. In his letter informing the professor of his decision, Hayes concedes that examination of Séralini’s raw data showed no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.
as i understand this study, it used the same standards and procedures as the original monsanto study that was used to pass gmo as safe, all that substantially differed was that this study was longer than the 3 month monsanto study. the criticism leveled at this study therefore also applies equally to the original monsanto study which stopped at 3 months. I don’t understand the retraction and the flag waving i see on this thread, are we saying politics cannot influence science and journal editors? where did our memories go?
http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15190-journal-retraction-of-seralini-paper-a-flagrant-abuse-of-science-scientists-network
journal editor works/worked for monsanto
selective skepticism is dogma
The complaining about politics and special interests here is a criticism that works both ways. The anti-gm activists along with powerful and well-funded international NGOs, are converging to use methods in science which were problematic from the beginning. The further defense of this shoddy methodology and the claims of persecution by Monsato are readily recognizable. It hardly needs pointing out that the mo of the anti-gm activists are very similar to the mo of the environmentalists and UN activists who use the argument that any one who disagrees with the settled science of global warming is in the pay of Big Oil. Once again:
“The main findings were that a particular strain of rats studied over their entire lifetimes developed more tumours and died earlier if they were fed on the GM maize variety. Others, fed on conventional maize but provided with water containing low levels of Roundup, also developed more tumours than the controls.
But here the plot thickens. Despite these superficially worrying findings, the design of the experiment appears to be incapable of demonstrating any effects with any statistical rigour. 25% of the (smaller) control group also died after developing tumours, but some of the test groups (it is unclear which) actually had fewer health problems. There was also no dose-response effect, which would normally occur only if a substance was toxic at extremely low levels, which is highly unlikely for a crop or compound which has been widely used for many years.”
A microbiologist provides a very helpful observation about the publishing process and the role of Elsevier in all of this:
COPE actually has a whole slew of guidelines and recommendations for unethical conduct and honest error, and I think the paper falls in the category of “honest error” as grounds for its retraction. But in speaking about this whole thing with the spouse, I think that it would have been better if the journal had admitted that the article should not have been published in the first place, and stated that the journal and its reviewers made a mistake. I know that it’s wishful thinking. I know that it would never happen. But if the journal came out and stated, in an honest manner, the real reason why the article is being retracted then there would be no doubts and there could not be claims of secrecy or non-transparency, as reported by GM Watch’s statement on the matter. The Editor did issue a statement, but fell short on accepting responsibility. I think the Journal’s editorial staff should take some of the blame, because they definitely are not innocent by-standers in this matter. Let’s face it: if I was able to find fatal flaws in the very first paper related to GMOs that I ever read, then their experienced reviewers should have definitely been able to do the same.
http://frankenfoodfacts.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-seralini-saga-continues.html
Additional variables not controlled for in the study which were not mentioned on this thread are the following:
“Tom Sanders, head of nutritional research at King’s College London, says that the strain of rat the French team used gets breast tumours easily, especially when given unlimited food, or maize contaminated by a common fungus that causes hormone imbalance, or just allowed to age. There were no data on food intake or tests for fungus in the maize, so we don’t know whether this was a factor.”
This has been an interesting thread.
I am against having GMOs, or, as I term them, FrankenFoods, as part of our food supply. I’ve read the research and have determined that the idea behind GMOs is an eventual suborning of our food.
One thing you may wish to investigate is the “Terminator gene” present in all Monsanto seeds. The seeds can be made to non-germinate, via some trigger controlled by Monsanto. This should be of some concern to us all.
Chelation is the method by which Roundup works. Because of this chelation, the foods are rendered nutritionally devoid of value. Chelation keeps nutrients from all organisms, humans included.
My mind isn’t made up about the dangers of GMOs, but I do think that we need independent research done. Those who complain about such research hampering “progress” should allow for unbiased scientists to replicate their findings.
Let’s have more discussion on this topic.
Jeff C, be advised that I avoid “organically grown” food because I am concerned about what is substances are being bred into plants to resist pests that insecticides would kill (, and the naivete of organic farmers (such as use of manure as fertilizer, it must be properly composted to kill pathogens).
I avoid leaves on the forest floor (which may contain anthrax), and get immunized against tetanus (which comes from soil, the vaccine is probably artificial stuff).
I use canola oil every day, while originally developed by non-GMO methods most production here is of GMO varieties.
I don’t object to labeling foods as GMO-based, as long as the breeding and fertilization of organic foods is identified on packaging. Then I’ll choose the GMO-based products.
There is a pernicious campaign by the New Left to categorize anything human-invented as bad, and nature as benevolent. Some idiots at Canada Safeway advertised that – like Mother Nature – they wouldn’t lie to us. Sure I said [see above re anthrax and tetanus, plus poisonous mushrooms, the roots of one colour of Camus lilly being poisonous but another colour not]. Nature is neutral, in the sense that it is what it is and doesn’t have motives.
The book “Return of the Primitive” covers some of the New Left’s craziness.