Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Frankenfoods reduce global warming [View all]roseBudd
(8,718 posts)54. That is false
Stating something does not make it true. Fear mongering is despicable.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/11/19/anti-gm-corn-study-reconsidered-seralini-finally-responds-to-torrent-of-criticism/
"The French and Russian governments quickly launched investigations into the safety of NK603 and Russia and Kazakhstan placed temporary bans on its imports. Six leading French academies quickly reviewed the study and issued an unequivocal condemnation: Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanor when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion, the academies statement said.
After an expedited review, the French food safety authority ANSES, concluded that the study did not cast doubt on previous assessments of [the safety of] NK603, although the agency called for large-scale studies on insufficiently documented health risks.
Food and Chemical Toxicology, which published the study in September, recently released more than three dozen response letters from top scientists in its November issue and a response from the Séralini team. Among the highlights:
Alexander Y. Panchin, Russian Academy of Sciences: Analyzed and dismissed the study because of its lack of statistical significance in the mortality rates or the number of tumors in rats.
Andrew Cockburn, University of Newcastle, contended the study had no logical hypothesis and does not meet current standards of scientific adequacy. He questioned how this paper passed review in its current form and the impact of this for the normally high standards adopted by your Journal.
Frederick Schorsch, European Society of Toxicologic Pathology (ESTP), cited numerous methodological deficiencies, including the misinterpretation of lesions, the bungled presentation of pathology results, the absence of reference to good practices in toxicologic pathology and the mistreatment of animals (which showed immense tumors) in what appeared to be an attempt to make a political point.
David Tribe, University of Melbourne, further summarized a range of reactions including reviews by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) and German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which were universally condemnatory."
After an expedited review, the French food safety authority ANSES, concluded that the study did not cast doubt on previous assessments of [the safety of] NK603, although the agency called for large-scale studies on insufficiently documented health risks.
Food and Chemical Toxicology, which published the study in September, recently released more than three dozen response letters from top scientists in its November issue and a response from the Séralini team. Among the highlights:
Alexander Y. Panchin, Russian Academy of Sciences: Analyzed and dismissed the study because of its lack of statistical significance in the mortality rates or the number of tumors in rats.
Andrew Cockburn, University of Newcastle, contended the study had no logical hypothesis and does not meet current standards of scientific adequacy. He questioned how this paper passed review in its current form and the impact of this for the normally high standards adopted by your Journal.
Frederick Schorsch, European Society of Toxicologic Pathology (ESTP), cited numerous methodological deficiencies, including the misinterpretation of lesions, the bungled presentation of pathology results, the absence of reference to good practices in toxicologic pathology and the mistreatment of animals (which showed immense tumors) in what appeared to be an attempt to make a political point.
David Tribe, University of Melbourne, further summarized a range of reactions including reviews by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) and German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which were universally condemnatory."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
103 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Well, now we have "superweeds" and even worse poison is being used to try and kill them.
djean111
Jun 2013
#1
No, I think we will be cutting down the rainforest in order to mine and drill and plant GMO crops.
djean111
Jun 2013
#5
How is that possibly related to GMO plants? You think GMOs faciliatate that somehow?
Buzz Clik
Jun 2013
#7
Obviously, and you and I were already discussing when you decided to open a parallel discussion.
Buzz Clik
Jun 2013
#16
Oh, but who has the time to care about preserving everyone who is polluting the planet
NoOneMan
Jun 2013
#61
I don't deny that rainforests are being cleared, but Monsanto's involvement is next to nothing.
Buzz Clik
Jun 2013
#15
The uncontrolled variable of allowing rodents to consume excessive energy and the complicating ....
roseBudd
Jun 2013
#91
I use Roundup on the stumps of invasive European Buckthorn, Japanese Honeysuckle...
roseBudd
Jun 2013
#29
No one is eating that asshole mulberry tree that tried to grow where it does not belong.
roseBudd
Jun 2013
#55
There were fewer deaths among the male rats that had drunk the highest concentration of Roundup
roseBudd
Jun 2013
#89
What they fail to report, however, is that the observed effects in many cases overlap with the
roseBudd
Jun 2013
#94
Guess someone poisoned the crickets too cause I'd be hearing them now otherwise...
Generic Other
Jun 2013
#60
How is advocating any form of conventional mono-cropping congruent with climate concern?
NoOneMan
Jun 2013
#100
I don't have to be a scientist to know that Monsanto is toxic to the planet.
forestpath
Jun 2013
#35
Rejecting research that is flawed is intellectual honesty. Calling someone a pimp is ad hominem
roseBudd
Jun 2013
#87
yeah, and if you killed a bunch of people there would be less co2 in the air. eom
ellenfl
Jun 2013
#47
Salmonella and E. Coli have killed people, not GM corn. Sprague-Dawley rats develop tumors
roseBudd
Jun 2013
#67
how do you know gm corn hasn't killed anyone? i know of some indian farmers it has killed. eom
ellenfl
Jun 2013
#76
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
prole_for_peace
Jun 2013
#66