Monsanto Protection Act Sneaks Through Senate

FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT GM FOOD SAFETY
Because all these matters are complex, none of them can easily be resolved by a simple or
straightforward presentation of “facts”. There are just too many facts of supposed relevance
and too much debate about what does and does not constitute a relevant fact. Although
there is no shortage of data, it is rarely entirely clear and conclusive. Furthermore, for
reasons of their own, some of the parties use and manipulate data to suit their individual
purposes: information favourable to their own point of view is repeatedly (and often loudly)
trumpeted while anything which does not support them is ignored. Even when specific
“facts” are recognised by both sides, very different interpretations may be put upon them.
http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/CropGen_report/CropGen.pdf

 

Concerning font size:

Is this your idea of contributing to the topic? Or are you just paranoid, Odon? At any rate, I'm afraid you're just going to have to live with it. Why don't you start a thread about what bothers you about some posters?

 

It's not difficult to change the size of a font. I just wondered why that particular post was three times the size. You just put this down to the pdf - even though you could change it yourself. I'm not really bothered, I just wondered why it was the size it was. I have contributed to the topic by posting the same material from a very different source.

 

Well, Odon, if you have any issues with anything I've posted, why don't you address them?

 

I have. It's no big deal really. Just curious. Your response is, erm, satisfactory, I guess. Shit happens, get over it. Ok, I will.
I am going to read the last few pages again.
I just don't have the energy to respond at the moment - under the weather.

 

Be careful, when you're under the weather, even the smallest things will irritate you and appear amplified. Just a helpful hint . . .

 

But yes, the last couple of pages is highly instructive when it comes to what's going on.

 

It did not irritate me. I was just curious. I know a few posters that change the typography of their posts sometimes. No big deal, really.

 

If you say so.

 

Oh look, we're wasting a whole page on non-productive banter about font-size. That could possibly detract from the previous pages of actual substance. I think I'll withdraw from this.

 

A further note about substantial equivalence, though the link was posted (#52 pg 6) early on in the thread without much elaboration. I'll just note the relevant points here.

(my emphasis)

In the body of the document the concept is further detailed and there are dozens of links to the safety studies done at that time. Some brief highlights,

International Life Sciences Institute:

Food and Agriculture Organization / World Health Organization:

...and with regard to unintended effects,

(my emphasis) Also worth having a look at the breakdown chart for each country under the Food safety regulations heading in the WHO statement.

Some of the measured parameters in studies done back in the late 1990's.

. At some point, I'll see if I can find a more up to date list of tested components though these will be different depending on the food being tested and which components have shown substantial equivalence and require no further analysis.

Proteomics and metabolic analyses, as well as the instruments and techniques for probing these kind of things have made leaps and bounds since the end of the 20th century. Indeed, some of my own work involves helping to develop a novel type of metabolic analysis. More later.

eta: regarding quantification of substantial equivalence, a standard practice in determining if some result is equivalent or not would be if the difference between it and the compared value was statistically significant.

Wiki

 

Unfortunately, whatever has been accepted as adequate, concerning substantial equivalence, is trumped by this:
　
When claims of substantial equivalence have been independently tested, they have been found to be untrue. Using the latest molecular analytical methods, GM crops have been shown to have a different composition to their non-GM counterparts. This is true even when the two crops are grown under the same conditions, at the same time and in the same location – meaning that the changes are not due to different environmental factors but to the genetic modification.

___________________________________
　
And this:
　
Here is the conclusion of a study published by the American Chemical Society and found in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry:

In conclusion, the results obtained indicate that the consumption
of MON810 maize used in the present study induced
alterations in intestinal and peripheral immune response of
weaning and old mice. Although the significance of these data
remains to be clarified to establish whether these alterations
reflect significant immune dysfunctions, these results suggest
the importance of considering the gut and peripheral immune
response to the whole GM crop, as well as the age, in the GMO
safety evaluation.

http://www.cyberacteurs.org/sans_ogm...-jf802059w.pdf

And this study was conducted for only 30 and 90 days. What problems did you have with this study? No problem? Some problems? A lot of problems? It is no longer acceptable for you to remain so closed mouthed concerning challenges to your ideas.

You posted this:

Longer-term studies may be needed if the results of a 90-day study indicate adverse effects such as proliferative changes in tissues. Well, I believe that the ninety day study above indicates that long-term studies were called for. Were these studies done? Where are they? What were the results? I will interpret your continued silence as a refusal to admit that you are wrong. What else could it mean?

_______________________________________
　
So, here again we have someone producing nothing but opinion and the opinion of others, and then disregarding the conclusion of actual studies, both short-term and long-term. It's called denial.
　
And when asked an opinion concerning this:
　
The biotech industry's study which the EFSA accepted as proof of safety, has the following weaknesses:

Six irrelevant "reference" control diets were introduced. These only served to introduce "data noise", which largely masked the effects of the genetic modification. In fact, significant differences were revealed in liver and kidney measurements, but these were masked by the wide range of variables introduced by the six irrelevant "reference" diets. This is scientific sleight-of-hand.

The rats were only followed over 90 days, a relatively short period equivalent to around 7-9 human years. This is inadequate to assess health risks to humans, who can be expected to eat a GM food over a lifetime.

Statistically significant differences were found but were dismissed as not treatment-related or not biologically meaningful, without scientific justification. The study period was not extended to see if these differences were in fact biologically meaningful.

Blood and urine samples were analyzed from only ten rats out of groups of 20. Yet organ weights were measured for all 20 rats per group. So the Monsanto researchers selected ten rats per sex out of 20 to analyze. What were the selection criteria? Did they choose those whose organ weights were the healthiest? Or did they analyze all 20 rats from each group and select the ten most favourable measurements to report? The method of selecting well may have been objective and random, but there is no way of knowing, and apparently, EFSA does not care. This practice invalidates the study as it introduces a scientifically unacceptable selection variable.

Fewer parameters were measured than in Séralini’s study, and less often.

Fewer doses of the maize were administered than in Séralini’s study (two, to Séralini’s three). The Monsanto researchers tried to draw a dose-response conclusion from feeding just two doses (11% and 33% maize), but a minimum of three doses are necessary to draw a valid dose-response conclusion, since with only two points you can draw a straight line between them regardless of how they relate to one another. Three doses are required by the OECD 408 protocol on which Monsanto researchers base their studies; it is unclear why Monsanto 90-day studies habitually use only two.
　
. . . the poster above appears to have filed it away in their denial-bin. Not a squeak; absolute silence; no comment. If there is to be a debate, the other side has to offer something other than mute responses. I am highly skeptical of people who insist on one-sided discussions for the purpose of getting out of answering uncomfortable questions.

Now, rather that having a discussion with yourself, respond to the above, if you will. Again, I will interpret your silence as a refusal to admit that you are wrong.

 

The concept of substantial equivalence is insufficient to ensure that GM foods are safe for human consumption. This is due to the absence of a proper definition of the concept of substantial equivalence. The degree of difference between a natural food and its GM alternative before its "substance" ceases to be acceptably equivalent is not defined anywhere. Nor has an exact definition been agreed to by legislators. As a result, comparison tests carried out in GM and non-GM foods are usually limited to a restricted set of criteria, including chemical and nutritional evaluation with a set of selected substances and superficial animal testing. Because GM food’s toxicity cannot be predicted from its chemical composition, the concept of substantial equivalence is misguided and should be abandoned in favor of one that includes biological, toxicological and immunological tests rather than merely chemical ones.

 

A feeding trial on rats fed GM rice found significant differences in the GM-fed group as compared with the control group fed the non-GM parent line of rice. These included a markedly higher water intake by the GM-fed group, as well as differences in blood biochemistry, immune response, and gut bacteria. Organ weights of female rats fed GM rice were different from those fed non-GM rice. Commenting on the differences, the authors said, "None of them were considered to be adverse". But they added that this 90-day study "did not enable us to conclude on the safety of the GM food."

In reality, a 90-day study is too short to show whether any changes found are "adverse" (giving rise to identifiable illness). Yet no regulatory body requires GM foods to be tested for longer than this subchronic (medium-term) period of 90 days.

The study found that the composition of the GM rice was different from that of the non-GM parent, in spite of the fact that the two rice lines were grown side-by-side in identical conditions. This is clear evidence that the GM transformation process had disrupted gene structure and/or function in the GM variety, making it non-substantially equivalent to the non-GM line.

Poulsen M, Kroghsbo S, Schroder M, et al. A 90-day safety study in Wistar rats fed genetically modified rice.

 

So, I read like the first 8 pages before I just couldn't take it anymore.

Joanofsnarc you are the worst.

Storch I applaud your tenacity, but you should have given up on this guy pages ago.

Yet another hipforums thread hijacked and made unreadable by warring intellects.

*Fuck Monsanto and the governments who cater to them and their ilk*

 

http://truththeory.com/2013/04/16/study-reveals-gmo-corn-to-be-highly-toxic/
http://rt.com/usa/toxic-study-gmo-corn-900/

 

Warring intellects? That's debatable. Unreadable? I don't think I was unclear. Sometimes people defend the indefensible by attempting to turn a debate into a war of attrition when all else fails. I was damned if I was going to allow her to tout her science background as a means to bolster her credibility. Neither would I allow her to occupy the last page of this thread with bullshit.

And to that end:
　
JoanofSnarc: "Given that, I thought it was more important to talk about, not how Monsanto et. al represents and tests their product (though their tests follow guidelines and standards set out by the FDA . . ."

_____________________________________
　
"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety."
　
--US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
　
________________________________________
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job."
　
--Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications.
　
__________________________________________
　
"It is not foreseen that EFSA carry out such [safety] studies, as the onus is on the [GM industry] applicant to demonstrate the safety of the GM product in question."
　
--European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
　
___________________________________________
JoanofSnarc: "One might get the impression from reading solely anti-gmo material that companies like Monsanto do their own crooked and biased testing and government regulatory agencies simply rubber stamp it and, tada!"

______________________________________
　
"One thing that surprised us is that US regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review... The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods."

– David Schubert, professor and head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, commenting on a comprehensive peer-reviewed study of US government’s regulation of GMOs that he co-authored.

 

I still don't know from where they found that name MONSANTO ... basically ... MON means MY in french .... and SANTO means SAINT in spanish ... so it's maybe MYSAINT... but i don't think that Jesus would be a big fan of what they are doin'... moreover the derivative SANO means HEALTHY in spanish ...

All the opposite of what really is MONSANTO... it's unbelievable how much they are hypocritical... it's like a serious bipolar disorder case... somebody with 2 faces... but the darkest definitly is dominating as a dictator...

 

Monsanto was founded in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1901, by John Francis Queeny, a 30‑year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry. He funded the start-up with his own money and capital from a soft drink distributor and gave the company his wife's maiden name. His father-in-law was Emmanuel Mendes de Monsanto.

 

MONSANTO is the pure devil of our country. All the food of the world now are poisoned. We human race are all doomed.