Revealed: Monsanto GM corn caused tumors in rats

originally posted by: theboarman
a reply to: DJW001

you are comparing apples and oranges, what we do with cross breeding is what would happen in nature but at a much slower pace, with cross breeding you dont need to use a gene gun and your not physically messing with the dna, agriculture is not unnatural because the food we grow is natural and would grow in the wild, when we start useing gmo crops then it becomes unnatural.

This is the least technical reference I could find at the moment:

...But genetic research over the past decade has shown that chloroplasts can be exchanged between cells on either side of a graft, and in some cases an entire cell nucleus can be exchanged as well. In this new effort, the researchers have found that cells can exchange mitochondria also which means that plants mix their DNA together when grafting takes place.
This new evidence blurs the line between genetically modified plants, or crops that come about due to man-made processes and those that occur naturally, because natural grafting sometimes occurs when two plants grow close to one another. Those who insist that GMOs are harmless will now have another argument to back them up because it now appears that plants have been swapping DNA naturally all along.

www.gate2biotech.com...

originally posted by: DJW001
Monsanto is developing agricultural products that force their consumers into a monopolistic relationship with the company. Farmers need to combine Monsanto crops with Monsanto pesticides and fertilizers.

Exactly. Monopole is the keyword. Like everything else, corps are always after a monopole.

This is why I tend to favour non-modified plants - not because of dna evilness concerns, but actually because of their ability to better reproduce. I buy my seeds only once, and then I can forever resplenish my crops without having to spend a cent. Take that Monsanto!

a reply to: swanne

Exactly! The danger is not in genetic modification, which can happen naturally, but on monoculture, the practice of growing a single species of crop over a large area. Any infestation or virus that affects that species will spread rapidly. Crops need to be interspersed in order to form natural "firebreaks." Also, you don't want a society overly dependent on a single crop in the first place: remember the Irish potato famine.

a reply to: theboarman

Don't know if this has been posted before but I read this same report last year. Personally, it should be posted regularly and often. F# Monsanto.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: theboarman

Don't know if this has been posted before but I read this same report last year. Personally, it should be posted regularly and often. F# Monsanto.

Why do you think a bogus study needs to be posted regularly and often?

a reply to: CharlesT

i agree, and the fact you still got people in this thread saying ''The danger is not in genetic modification'' is laughable .

originally posted by: theboarman
what do the pro gmo people have to say now?

Let us see what other experts say...

Experts asked by reporters to review the scientific paper advised caution in drawing conclusions from it. Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. "This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip." Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns. "If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment. David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. He added that the study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.

a reply to: theboarman

Why? How does turning off/on identified genes for certain functions make it less natural than using the shotgun method of nature?

Nature is slow. We can be faster and we should be. There's still 2 billion people on this planet is some seriously horrid poverty. The only way we are going to feed everyone now, and in the future, is directly manipulating the genes of our foods to conform to our needs and levels of demand.

The VAST majority of PEER REVIEWED studies on GMOs have more than vindicated their use. Monsanto is a poster child of the anti-gmo crowd who are reliant on all the most anti-scientific methods and misinformation to demonize an important scientific endeavor.

Science denialism is far more of a problem than GMO corn will ever be.

To me, it is not nitpicking to allow review prior to publishing, and it is not nitpicking to ask that rats who are not genetically predisposed to cancer development be used in a study where an unrelated factor might be getting the blame.

originally posted by: theboarman
a reply to: CharlesT

i agree, and the fact you still got people in this thread saying ''The danger is not in genetic modification'' is laughable .

And the fact that you have people rejecting the scientific method is sad.

a reply to: DJW001

ill repost from your own link that shows no fraud was committed as i did on page 1 .

In June 2014, the original study was republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe.[86][87] The editor said that the paper was republished without further scientific peer review, "because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.

or maybe im misunderstanding something

originally posted by: projectvxn

Some scientists however criticized the French researchers’ statistical methods and the use of a particular type of rat, saying the albino Sprague-Dawley strain of animal had a tendency to develop cancers.

I guess we missed this part...

Maybe we should be more critical of the methods used in this study.

They also rushed the study, overdosing the rats to hasten results. Long term, even in trace amounts, pesticides aren't good for anyone, either sprayed on us or ingested. The 'real' study is us… since they removed GMO labeling, its a blind study, too.

a reply to: theboarman

Can anyone provide the link that revealed the head of the testing agency was actually a former Monsanto employee?

There were threads here, thats where I learned that.

a reply to: projectvxn

ill just deal with one point you made as neither of us will be changing echothers mind.

Nature is slow. We can be faster and we should be. There's still 2 billion people on this planet is some seriously horrid poverty. The only way we are going to feed everyone now, and in the future, is directly manipulating the genes of our foods to conform to our needs and levels of demand.

i dont believe that, i believe with the new vertical grow technology along with other advancements in how we grow food, i believe we can still be natural and feed everyone.

originally posted by: theboarman
a reply to: DJW001

ill repost from your own link that shows no fraud was committed as i did on page 1 .

In June 2014, the original study was republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe.[86][87] The editor said that the paper was republished without further scientific peer review, "because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.

or maybe im misunderstanding something

Environmental Science Europe is an environmental, not medical journal. There is reason to suspect that environmentalists are predisposed against GMOs.

a reply to: intrptr

The 'real' study is us… since they removed GMO labeling, its a blind study, too.

There is no GMO labeling in the US, although some products will claim that they contain no GMOs. You can always purchase those.

a reply to: theboarman

I think it makes more sense to genetically modify plants to produce more with less resources in combination with ideas like vertical farming. Most "organic" foods require enormous amounts of water and pesticides. If you take that approach with vertical farming on a massive scale you're going to produce droughts of enormous proportions.

This anti-gmo "organic" stuff is a solution in search of a problem by people who don't understand farming(either organic or regular farming), and who don't care for the scientific method.

a reply to: projectvxn

The anti-GMO movement is strongest in countries where getting sufficient calories is not an issue. It is a form of diet fetishism on the part of the well fed. In and of itself, it is not a problem if Americans and Europeans are willing and able to pay more for products that are allegedly more "natural." Indeed, there are a lot of fruits and vegetables that taste better or have more pleasing textures in their "heirloom" form. The problem is when these beliefs are used as an excuse to deny urgently needed food to third world people. There are dictators in Africa using the anti-GMO rhetoric to starve their people.

a reply to: DJW001

There are dictators in Africa using the anti-GMO rhetoric to starve their people.

got any links or proof for that claim? im interested.

a reply to: theboarman

Monsanto is evil incarnate.

I eat oatmeal, cage free farm fresh eggs and nuts. And take vitamins.

A bit off topic but I am a big fan of nicotinic acid B3 niacin. I purchased a bottle without reading the ingredients. One of the ingredients was hydrogenated oil aka trans fat. The official reason stated for using trans fat in foods is as a flavor enhancer.

Why would they then put it in my vitamins?

Because niacin as nicotinic acid is so beneficial to your health, I think, that they seek to limit its proven health benefits like cholesterol reduction.