Monsanto Protection Act Sneaks Through Senate

post #52.

 

And as far as there being no need for more extensive testing of GMOs, I think you need to address the Seralini research paper. I've already posted their conclusion. Here is the abstract from that:

We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately 60 different biochemical parameters were classified per organ and measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM maize-fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental non-GM equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six reference groups, which had consumed various other non-GM maize varieties. We applied nonparametric methods, including multiple pairwise comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal Component Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors (sex, weeks of feeding, diet, dose and group). Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.

Time for bed.

 

It means that the assessment organizations listed agree that this is the only adequate way of initially assessing the safety of a gm food. There are no other reasonable strategies. It doesn't mean that if a gm food fails the equivalence test that there are no other ways to continue testing. There are, and if you read the details of some of those protocols you will see that there are further tests that can be and are done if the gm food does not show equivalence. I don't know what the practice is in Europe but here, every single modified product submitted for approval (and they all must be) must pass the equivalence test and if it doesn't the product is subjected to further, more specific testing. If all goes well for the product manufacturer, the process takes 10 years from the time of submission.

 

If there is a free full-text version of it, provide a link and I'll look at it when I have time. This was a highly controversial paper as I recall, but something that jumps out at me right in the abstract is the note that the hepatic and other side effects were sex and dose dependent. First rule of toxicology: Dose is everything. Even water is toxic in large enough quantity. Also, they state in their conclusion that the toxicity is possibly due to the pesticide specific to the gmo. This doesn't say anything at all about the toxicity of the genetic modification itself and it says absolutely nothing about gm foods as a class. I'd have to look at the methods and data to provide a more detailed answer. I have a job to go to early in the morning so it'll have to wait.

 

JoanofSnarc,

I did provide a link to the details of the study. It's in post #22.
　
In the meantime, here is an open letter signed by over 800 world scientists addressed to all governments. I will post only a tiny portion of it, but the rest of it, plus a list of the names and credentials of the scientists who signed it, can be seen here:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php
________________________________________________
We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.
Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals.

GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world.

The hazards of GMOs to biodiversity and human and animal health are now acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments. Particularly serious consequences are associated with the potential for horizontal gene transfer. These include the spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infectious diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer.

In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol negotiated in Montreal in January 2000, more than 130 governments have pledged to implement the precautionary principleand to ensure that biosafety legislations at the national and international levels take precedence over trade and financial agreements at the World Trade Organization.

Successive studies have documented the productivity and the social and environmental benefits of sustainable, low-input and organic farming in both North and South. They offer the only practical way of restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices, and empower small family farmers to combat poverty and hunger.

We urge the US Congress to reject GM crops as both hazardous and contrary to the interest of family farmers; and to support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers all over the world.

We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.

1 Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals(1). Life-forms such as organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes are discoveries and hence not patentable. Current GM techniques which exploit living processes are unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable, and do not qualify as inventions. Furthermore, those techniques are inherently unsafe, as are many GM organisms and products.

2. It is becoming increasingly clear that current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion preventing the essential shift to sustainable agricultural practices that can provide food security and health around the world.

3. Two simple characteristics account for the nearly 40 million hectares of GM crops planted in 1999(2). The majority (71%) are tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides, with companies engineering plants to be tolerant to their own brand of herbicide, while most of the rest are engineered with bt-toxins to kill insect pests. A university-based survey of 8200 field trials of the most widely grown GM crops, herbicide-tolerant soya beans - revealed that they yield 6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM varieties(3). This has been confirmed by a more recent study in the University of Nebraska(4). Yet other problems have been identified: erratic performance, disease susceptibility(5), fruit abortion(6) and poor economic returns to farmers(7).

 

JoanofSnarc,

There are several types of statistical analysis. Gilles-Eric Séralini’s study is not a certification study seeking to demonstrate that certain substances are harmful, but rather a piece of exploratory research to guide future investigations. Initially, Séralini did not know what he would find, so he designed his experiment, reproducing almost exactly the protocol already used to put NK603 maize on the market, while increasing its duration, and multiplying the analysis of different biomarkers.

 

Concerning your concerns about the controversial work of Seralini, Paul Deheuvels is an eminent statistician and a member of the French Academy of Sciences. Yet he was not consulted when the Academy released a statement discrediting the results of the study on GMOs, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini. Revolted by these methods, Paul Deheuvels goes back over this matter where pressures and conflicts of interest got the upper hand. Here is the beginning of an interview with him:

[Rebelle-Sante:] How did you find out about the French Academy of Sciences’ position on this matter?

[Deheuvels:] In November 2011, during an award ceremony at the Academy, I exchanged a few words with one of my colleagues at the Institute, Professor Alain-Jacques Valleron, a biostatistician, for whom I have huge respect.

He made me aware that the Academy was preparing a statement on Gilles-Eric Séralini’s article. As I am currently the only member of the French Academy of Sciences 100% specialised in statistics, I was astonished not to have been consulted to judge this research, which has an important statistical content. Alain-Jacques Valleron told me that he found this study absolutely worthless. According to him, it had no value; it did not demonstrate anything and deserved to be exposed to public contempt. In return, I gave him a completely different opinion with solid arguments that I tried to get across.

During this discussion, I accidently found out that Professor Jean-François Bach, president of the Academy, intended to make public a very critical opinion of the same study. Finding it strange I asked to be in contact with Bach. The next day, he contacted me by telephone and told me that he thought that Professor Séralini’s work should be categorically rejected. Unsurprisingly, I exposed my arguments leading to a position opposing his. During this discussion, Professor Bach kindly tempered his statements, telling me that, in the main, he and I should be able to reach a consensus. I told him that if we were able to find common ground, my reservations should be at the very least added to any communication that the Academy would be willing to make about this question, in order for the debate to remain balanced. He replied: "Too late, the shot has been fired."

The rest of the interview can be seen here:

http://gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/52...h-academy-of-sciences-hatchet-job-on-seralini

 

Also, it seems to me that, rather than bitch and moan about Seralini's conclusions, such an issue which involves the potential for damage to the human population would mandate that the FDA order immediate further, serious, independent long-term studies to either prove or disprove the Seralini paper. The refusal to re-examine its earlier decision to approve Monsanto GMO maize, no matter what flaws might or might not have been in the Seralini paper, would seem to suggest that the FDA is shirking its duty. One has to wonder why they don't do a two-year study to prove Seralini wrong. One can only wonder . . .

 

Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn.

From: Institute of Science in Society (ISIS).

The charges follow a long struggle for justice by a German farmer whose dairy cattle suffered mysterious illnesses and deaths after eating Bt 176. They were grown on his farm as part of authorised field tests during 1997 to 2002. By 2000, his cows were fed exclusively on Bt 176, and soon illnesses started to emerge. He was paid 40 000 euros by Syngenta as partial compensation for 5 dead cows, decreased milk yields, and vet costs (see [2] Cows ate GM Maize and Died, SiS 21). During a civil lawsuit brought against the company by the farmer however, Syngenta refused to admit that its GM corn was the cause, claiming no knowledge of harm. The case was dismissed and Gloeckner remained thousands of euros in debt.

Gloeckner continued to lose cows and many more had to be put down due to serious illnesses, compelling him to stop using GM feed from 2002. He approached the Robert Koch Institute and Syngenta to conduct a full investigation. However, only one cow was ever analysed and the data are still unavailable to the public. Unsurprisingly, no causal relationship between the GM feed and deaths was determined; and there is still no explanation for the deaths.

But in 2009, the farmer learned of a feeding study allegedly commissioned by Syngenta in 1996 that resulted in four cows dying in two days. The trial was abruptly terminated. Now Gloeckner, along with a German group called Bündnis Aktion Gen-Klage and another farmer turned activist Urs Hans, have brought Syngenta to the criminal court to face charges of withholding knowledge of the US trial, which makes the company liable for the destruction of the farmer’s 65 cows. Syngenta is also charged with the deaths of cattle in the US trial and on Gloeckner’s farm, which should have been registered as "unexpected occurrences". Most seriously, the German head of Syngenta Hans-Theo Jahmann, is charged for withholding knowledge of the US study from the judge and from Gloecker in the original civil court case.

Read the entire article here:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Syngenta_Charged_for_Covering_Up_Livestock_Deaths_from_GM_Corn.php

It's just my opinion, but doesn't the above qualify as mammalian testing? It is not an isolated incident.

 

What do you mean by 'unjustly'?

Could you post comments directly from that journal and the report?

The open letter is over a decade old, has there been any recent open letters from the same body of people? basically, what is there position now?

 

Odon,

I believe you know the definition of the word "unjustly." But for your clarification: If someone made a study which "fraudulently" condemned my product, I would sue them for misrepresenting my product. Wouldn't you?

Why are you asking me to post the comment directly from the journal? Are you implying that I made it up? Or did you not research it? Or did your extensive research turn up nothing? Which is it, Odon?

Oh, and the position of the 800+ scientists from around the world remains the same.

And by "basically, what is there position now?", did you mean "Basically, what is their position now?" ;-)

 

Yes.

I was just wondering which side of the fence you were standing on, that's all.

'Do you believe that Monsanto would sue the International Journal of Biological Sciences for publishing a study which unjustly condemns their product? I do!'

You seemed to be being sympathetic towards Monsanto. I just wondered why? I wondered if 'unjustly' was a typo.

I couldn't find what you were refering to - it's that simple.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm

How do you know?

No

 

No, Odon, I was not siding with Monsanto. I was calling into question Monsanto's reluctance to sue Seralini or the International Journal of Biological Sciences for unjustly--meaning without basis--publishing an untruth about their product which would no doubt hurt sales.

Concerning the link you provided, it's funny that the EFSA would call into question the legitimacy of the Seralini paper by applying a level of scientific standards that Monsanto itself never met. So why did they not also condemn Monsanto? Can you say . . . "bias"?

And here is the comment from the journal you requested:

"The Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission provided to EFSA its opinion on the environmental risk assessment in line with Articles 6.3 (e) and 18.3 (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The Spanish Competent Authority and its Biosafety Commission conclude that "according to the current state of scientific knowledge and after examining the existing information and data provided by the Monsanto Company . . ." the Spanish Commission on Biosafety could give a favourable opinion to the commercialisation in the E.U. of maize NK603 if proposals and conditions established in the ERA report are implemented".

 

Also, I posted the position of 800+ scientists from around the world concerning GMOs. If you believe that they've changed their position, then I suggest that you provide evidence to that effect.

 

I read further back, and then upto that point. It made more sense. It was just it seemed like you were writing history rather than offering an opinion, so it was a little confusing to decipher at times. I must admit, though, I wasn't paying 100% attention. Sorry.

We all have a bias one way or another. Are you suggesting you don't?

The reason I was asking a few questions was, as I have said, it seemed like you were writing history rather than offering an opinion.
Such as: How do you know the position of the 800+ scientists from around the world remains the same?
I wasn't saying some might have changed their position, I was asking how do you know they haven't?

 

I assume you're referring to this:
________________________________________________
We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.
Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals.

GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world.

The hazards of GMOs to biodiversity and human and animal health are now acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments. Particularly serious consequences are associated with the potential for horizontal gene transfer. These include the spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infectious diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer.

In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol negotiated in Montreal in January 2000, more than 130 governments have pledged to implement the precautionary principleand to ensure that biosafety legislations at the national and international levels take precedence over trade and financial agreements at the World Trade Organization.

Successive studies have documented the productivity and the social and environmental benefits of sustainable, low-input and organic farming in both North and South. They offer the only practical way of restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices, and empower small family farmers to combat poverty and hunger.

We urge the US Congress to reject GM crops as both hazardous and contrary to the interest of family farmers; and to support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers all over the world.

We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.

1 Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals(1). Life-forms such as organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes are discoveries and hence not patentable. Current GM techniques which exploit living processes are unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable, and do not qualify as inventions. Furthermore, those techniques are inherently unsafe, as are many GM organisms and products.

2. It is becoming increasingly clear that current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous diversion preventing the essential shift to sustainable agricultural practices that can provide food security and health around the world.

3. Two simple characteristics account for the nearly 40 million hectares of GM crops planted in 1999(2). The majority (71%) are tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides, with companies engineering plants to be tolerant to their own brand of herbicide, while most of the rest are engineered with bt-toxins to kill insect pests. A university-based survey of 8200 field trials of the most widely grown GM crops, herbicide-tolerant soya beans - revealed that they yield 6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM varieties(3). This has been confirmed by a more recent study in the University of Nebraska(4). Yet other problems have been identified: erratic performance, disease susceptibility(5), fruit abortion(6) and poor economic returns to farmers(7).

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

 

Well, to tell the truth, I would expect that after they had become aware of this:
　
Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types. In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.

http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

. . . their position would remain as strong as ever, if not stronger.

 

And I would imagine that this:
From: Institute of Science in Society (ISIS).

The charges follow a long struggle for justice by a German farmer whose dairy cattle suffered mysterious illnesses and deaths after eating Bt 176. They were grown on his farm as part of authorised field tests during 1997 to 2002. By 2000, his cows were fed exclusively on Bt 176, and soon illnesses started to emerge. He was paid 40 000 euros by Syngenta as partial compensation for 5 dead cows, decreased milk yields, and vet costs (see [2] Cows ate GM Maize and Died, SiS 21). During a civil lawsuit brought against the company by the farmer however, Syngenta refused to admit that its GM corn was the cause, claiming no knowledge of harm. The case was dismissed and Gloeckner remained thousands of euros in debt.

Gloeckner continued to lose cows and many more had to be put down due to serious illnesses, compelling him to stop using GM feed from 2002. He approached the Robert Koch Institute and Syngenta to conduct a full investigation. However, only one cow was ever analysed and the data are still unavailable to the public. Unsurprisingly, no causal relationship between the GM feed and deaths was determined; and there is still no explanation for the deaths.

But in 2009, the farmer learned of a feeding study allegedly commissioned by Syngenta in 1996 that resulted in four cows dying in two days. The trial was abruptly terminated. Now Gloeckner, along with a German group called Bündnis Aktion Gen-Klage and another farmer turned activist Urs Hans, have brought Syngenta to the criminal court to face charges of withholding knowledge of the US trial, which makes the company liable for the destruction of the farmer’s 65 cows. Syngenta is also charged with the deaths of cattle in the US trial and on Gloeckner’s farm, which should have been registered as "unexpected occurrences". Most seriously, the German head of Syngenta Hans-Theo Jahmann, is charged for withholding knowledge of the US study from the judge and from Gloecker in the original civil court case.
　
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Syngenta_Cha...om_GM_Corn.php

. . . would also serve to only strengthen their position today.

 

Yes.

So you have no idea?

 

Something a little more recent about the Seralini study.

Final review of the Séralini et al. (2012a) publication on a 2-year rodent
feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as
published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology 1

In summary:

Some highlights:

The use of Sprague-Dawley rats almost makes me think that these short-lived, tumor-prone rats were deliberately chosen...

Dose makes the toxin. Enough on its own to reject the study, IMO.

Also of note, regarding the safety and testing of glyphosate: