Bad science about GMOs: It reminds me of the antivaccine movement (revisited)

When one of my friends posted a link to the pig study on Facebook, this was my response:

"[friend], there's some serious bias here. This was an attempt to reproduce the rat study, but remove the feeding problem, and thus prove the point. Unfortunately, the results really don't prove out.

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

The introduction spends FAR too much time trying to correlate pigs directly to humans and to convince the reader that a 22.7 week study is "long term" because that time equals the time for pigs to go to slaughter. 22.7 weeks is not a long term study, and shouldn't be considered one. (Pigs can live for years.)

The problems don't end there. The abstract tries to point a finger claiming only damages caused by GMOs, but it ignores the full results of the study.

Pg. 47 Is where you need to look to see the errors.

First, take a look at the "dramatic" differences in weight of the ovaries.
0.0040 - 0.019 for non-GMO vs.
0.0047 - 0.014 for GMO

The mean reported was
0.0085 for non-GMO vs.
0.0086 for GMO

The only reason that there's such a difference in weight is that they opted to comment on the tiniest of the organs tested. Had they volunteered information about the Standard Deviation, you would have seen that the overall mean weight for the ovaries of the tested groups was equal!

Then we can talk about the "bloated stomachs". What these researchers failed to note is that for the hearts, livers, and spleens - abnormalities were seen in MORE non-GMO than GMO pigs. (This result was not acknowledged in their abstract - even though other results were stated.) Even in the stomachs, more erosion and more moderate inflammation was noted in non-GMO.

This was NOT a successful study."

Here's the "Occupy Monsanto" link that provided his original source. I followed it to find the study results, and it provided the source link I used.
http://occupymonsanto360.org/blog/new-study-proves-gmos-cause-severe-in…

The reason I kept my discussion so short (believe me, I saw other problems) was that I was responding in a Facebook comment thread! Fortunately, the post was received well, and all information about the study - including the flaws - was left available on my friend's page.

It gets worse than the statistical fishing trip and lack of correct pathology data collection. The various authors of the study are failing to agree on what was done.

Here is Howard Vlieger being interviewed about the study:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/study-says-gmo-feed-may-harm-pigs/

Vlieger told Food Safety News that while the study could not include any anecdotal behavioral observations of the pigs, the researchers did notice a marked difference in temperament between the two groups. When recording the pigs’ weights each week, researchers say that the non-GM pigs were easy-going and generally cooperative, while the GM pigs were noticeably more irritable.

“For whatever reason, as soon as you brought them into confined quarters, they were fighting and biting each other,” Vlieger said. “Every time we did a weighing, the same scenario presented itself.”

However, the study itself stated:

Individual weights were recorded weekly and animals were monitored daily by observers who were blinded to a pig's dietary group.

FSM only knows what was going on.

As Orac notes, it is very poor science to look at redness in an autopsy stomach and conclude that it must relate to inflammation (there are other causes of erythema, including nonspecific postmortem changes, vascular dilatation for a variety of reasons etc.). You need to look at microscopic levels of inflammation AND correlate them to significant health outcomes (the authors of this crappy study admit that such outcomes did not differ significantly between the GM-fed and non-GM-fed pigs).

It is noteworthy that a co-author of the study, Howard Vlieger has a glaring conflict of interest that doesn't get mentioned in the publication:

"Vlieger is president and co-founder of Verity Farms, a US ‘natural foods’ outfit which markets non-GMO grain. Despite this, the paper declares that the authors have no conflicts of interest, although it seems to me that he would have a very clear commercial interest in scaring people about GMOs in order to drum up business of his GMO-free offerings."

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/#stha…

Typically the Mike Adamses and anti-GM shouters of the world trumpet conflicts of interest in science, real and imaginary (at least when they disagree with what's found), but they are curiously silent about the huge conflict of interest inherent in the pig inflammation study.

Followup note: despite my username, I declare that I have no commercial swine investments that would constitute a conflict of interest, though I love a good pulled pork sandwich.

I am a pathologist. It is true that, in the best of hands, gross examination will be wrong about 30% of the time. You all can figure out what happens when gross examination is not in the best of hands. That's why we spend so much time looking at slides.

Looking at the gross images from that paper raises a number of issues for me. First of all, I think that I can produce similar appearances by manipulating fixation artifact. From what I can tell of the material and methods presented in the paper, the examination by the veterinarians was done fresh, but were the pictures taken fresh? There seems to be fresh blood on the examination table in the photos, which by itself is an indication of sloppiness (it's not that difficult to spend an extra 10 seconds cleaning up the table so your pictures are presentable), but the paper doesn't really say what was done. Formalin will take much of the color out of the tissue, leaving an appearance much like that in the top left (nil) image. I find it hard to draw any conclusions here without seeing the full resolution images, but I am suspicious that we are being manipulated.

The images in the PDF are low resolution, so it is really hard to tell what the stomachs really look like. I think I should be able to tell a fixed stomach from a fresh stomach, but it's really hard to do so here.

Judging from the way the images are lighted (note the reflection from the light around the edges of the specimens), there should be significant specular reflections on the stomachs themselves if the specimens are fresh and much less so if they are fixed. I do not see the reflections that I would expect from a fresh specimen, but perhaps that has more to do with the poor quality of the reproductions.

Taking the images at face value, the image marked moderate (lower left) looks much worse to me than the image labelled severe (lower right). I have to ask what is really going on here.

One other thing is that autopsies are a messy business, and I expect that veterinary autopsies performed in a slaughterhouse would be much messier than the autopsies that I perform in a hospital setting. So how is it that the blood on the examining table in all four images is identical even though one of the stomachs is touching the blood, and there are no smears of blood immediately adjacent to the stomachs? Is it reasonable to think that they cleaned up the blood right around the specimens but not in the rest of the field? Also note that the labels are immaculate even though two of the stomachs appear to be touching them. It is very difficult to clean up all of the blood around this sort of fresh specimen.

The more I look, the more questions I have.

In my (limited) experience, telling people who are against GMOs that the studies they cite are faulty is every bit as effective as telling alties that the studies they cite are faulty. They assume bias because they assume a war -- a battle between different ways of thinking and being.

On one side you've got the Good Guys who care about living with Nature, harmony, and love. On the other side you have the Bad Guys who care about acquiring Power, money, and control.

You don't have to know any science to realize it's just common sense that the second group can't be trusted. Science on one side cancels out the science on the other and puts everyone on even footing. So forget the actual details of the issue: choose your side. Make a decision for the kind of person you want to be.

I probably don't need to add that in my (limited) experience the anti-GMOs and the alternative medicine proponents happen to be the same group. And they are very, very emotionally attached to the spiritual implications of the Naturalistic Fallacy. They think I am going along with the Bad Guys because I'm the sort of person who decided to be an atheist and thus it's ultimately my core values which are screwed up. They honestly can't tell the difference between good science and bad ... so they go with what they're comfortable with.

Obviously, alt med/ natural health advocates have a conflict of interest and usually mis-represent research because:
their creed indulges reverence for natural plant products as therapeutic and necessary for maintaining life and health.
Phyto-nutrients are superior to pharmaceuticals and tampering with Nature may destroy their pristine essences- which, of course, could heal all of our ills ( especially if given in supplement form).

GMOs often are involved with pesticide use- which is already taboo to organic food producers/ users. These manipulations and torture of 'natural medicines' ( i.e. vegetables and fruits) resemble the horrors that vaccines have wrought upon innocent children - and the research cited in support is just as awful.

Natural News and PRN have gone whole hog as anti-GMO advocates, writing articles, encouraging political action and creating films:
( @ Gary Null's You Tube channel) you may view his entire documentaries, " Seeds of Death"** and "GMOs: Ticking TIme Bombs" which incorporate the wisdom of Mike Adams, Jeffery Smith, RIma, Laibow, Dr Mercola and many other well-known rabble rousers whose careers rely upon the myth that "natural is better".

No COIs here we're told.

** I've actually viewed the entire claptrap fiesta- what I do for scepticism.

I'm sympathetic to the view that Monsanto is a Giant Evil Corporation--I'd include them on my list of Top Ten Evil Corporations myself. But that's more because of how Monsanto tries to control the supply chain: making farmers buy seeds from them, rather than planting seeds from previous crops as has been done since humans invented agriculture. In at least one case, Monsanto successfully sued a farmer for growing one of their products from seeds that had blown onto his property.

The GMO strain(s) we have heard the most about are the Roundup Ready products, in which the inserted gene(s) allow the crop to survive spraying with the weed killer Roundup (conveniently, a Monsanto product). This is basically a biological arms race, in that the weeds will eventually (either by natural selection or cross-species genetic transfer) develop resistance to Roundup. But there isn't any evidence that the crop itself (as opposed to pesticide residues) is harmful to people. And I don't think Monsanto is intentionally trying to harm consumers' health (at least directly), because that would be bad for business.

Sixty cumulative years of experience over 8 people averages out to a little over 7 years. Is that considered a lot in a scientific research context? Or am I right in thinking she used the cumulative figure so it would look better?

In at least one case, Monsanto successfully sued a farmer for growing one of their products from seeds that had blown onto his property.

This is inaccurate. The farmer was sued for replanting seeds that he knew (because there is record of him getting them tested) came from Monsanto. If he had simply harvested the grain that grew from the seed that allegedly blew onto his property and sold it on the market, he would have faced no penalty. It's the fact that he knowingly replanted GMO seed that brought the lawsuit.

What I'd like to see Monsanto do is have a replanting option in their licensing scheme. This would work as follows: for the standard price, you get to buy seed, but can't replant it after harvest. For a higher price, you get to replant seed, but the license covers the acreage per year you can replant. This could even be split into a multi-year license and an indefinite license.

This is the same arguments from vaccines just with the words GMO instead. In the words of another man who explained it very well "for centuries people kept going 'My crops keep being destroyed by bugs, Help us Science!' and 'my crops struggle to survive drought, help us science' and science did and suddenly they all turned around and went 'YOU MONSTERS. You altered life and put chemicals on our crops!'" The whole reason there is GMO is because people wanted and it is beneficial in the first place. If they didn't no one would have invested in it and we would not be here today.

@Jericho -- no kidding!

I have said this before, but if anyone really wants to see the difference between "pure" corn and modern hybrids, go to the 19th century farm at Greenfield Village near Detroit and look at their cornfield. There's no consistency in stalk height, ear size, or row yield (I'm not a farmer so this is possibly not the correct agricultural description).

Kevin,
Monsanto don't make anyone buy their seeds. It seems reasonable to me that they require people who buy their products to sign an agreement that they will not sow seeds for a next crop, since they need a return on their considerable investment in this biotechnology. There is nothing to stop farmers from buying traditional non-GM seeds if they don't want to sign such a contract. They were initially going to introduce terminator seeds that would only produce crops with sterile seeds, but were dissuaded from this, but the widespread pirating of their technologies, in India for example, is making them reconsider this.

As W. Kevin Vicklund pointed out, it isn't true that any farmers who have accidentally grown their GM seeds have been prosecuted - it's a myth spread by anti-GMOers. all the cases I have seen have been where farmers have quite deliberately and knowingly grown their seeds.

As for Roundup Ready crops, I don't see how these make it more likely that weeds will develop resistance and more than they do to regular, and very much more toxic, weedkillers. Glyphosate has remarkably low toxicity - the detergent they add to it is more toxic, which I think is pretty good, when you compare it to earlier weedkillers.

^ "any more", not "and more"

About the "pneumonia" that the pigs had. I would bet money that all they were seeing was blood pooling the lungs from the slaughter process. Not everyone may want to hear about this, so quit reading if you are squeamish. When pigs are slaughtered, first they are stunned, usually with a mechanical stunner applied to the head, carbon dioxide, or an electrical stunner. Then they are shackled by the rear legs and raised off the floor, and their carotid arteries and jugular veins are severed. So, at slaughter, blood in their lungs would be cranial. Unless they actually saw pus in the lungs, they can't diagnose pneumonia. Oh, and BTW, slaughter weight for most pigs is 220 pounds, about 4-6 months of age. And, as a vet with a PhD in pathology, no, you can't diagnose inflammation on gross exam. In fact, the first stomach from the non-GMO feed looks more anemic than non-inflamed to me. Iron deficient anemia is pretty common in young pigs, so much so that most piglets get an iron injection right after birth. And the alleged differences in how the two groups of pigs behaved--most likely handling differences, from the blinded (HAH!) animal workers.

@Krebiozen

I don’t see how these make it more likely that weeds will develop resistance and more than they do to regular, and very much more toxic, weedkillers.

A number of years ago, I recall (from memory, so grain o' salt) reading about this problem occurring in Canada. A resistant variety of flax was developed, but it cross-polinated with some wild plants that were closely related, resulting in resistant weeds. I forget the details, but that's the gist of it.

Todd W.,
That makes sense, though weeds seem quite capable of developing resistance without any assistance from cross-pollination.

@Krebiozen

True. The more they dominate a niche, the more opportunities they have to develop resistance.

A lot like cancer, really.

Monsanto don’t make anyone buy their seeds. It seems reasonable to me that they require people who buy their products to sign an agreement that they will not sow seeds for a next crop, since they need a return on their considerable investment in this biotechnology. There is nothing to stop farmers from buying traditional non-GM seeds if they don’t want to sign such a contract. They were initially going to introduce terminator seeds that would only produce crops with sterile seeds, but were dissuaded from this, but the widespread pirating of their technologies, in India for example, is making them reconsider this.

Oh, I understand why their licensing is the way it is, and agree there's nothing illegal about it. I was merely expressing a preference.

Monsanto don’t make anyone buy their seeds.

Oh, but then they can't experience the wonders of RoundUp ready. The non-GMO people bitch and moan about Monsanto, while at the same time wanting the technology to increase their yields while not using harsh herbicides. They just don't want to pay for it. *boggle*

Sorry Kevin, that was supposed to be directed to Eric Lund, not you. Mea culpa.

@ Michael Finfer, MD (#5)

Excellent comment overall, but a couple of points of possible correction. First, the legend to Fig. 1 says the stomachs are arranged in clockwise order from upper left: nil, mild, moderate, and severe. So the lower left is indeed severe.

Second, the reddish area in the lower right, that I assume you're calling blood, looks more like an upside down logo to me. In particular, the upper left image appears to show some lettering, including the word "INC". It also looks to me like they have covered the table, and probably also the labels and scales, with plastic wrap prior to placing & photographing each stomach. So I think your concerns about those particular issues can probably be discounted.

That is NOT meant to suggest that I think this study is sound - I don't.

From the piggy tummy study:

There were no statistically significant differences in food intake, feed conversion ratios,
number or nature of illnesses, number or nature of veterinary interventions, veterinary
costs or mortality between the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups of pigs. Mortalities were
13% and 14% for the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups respectively, which are within
expected rates for US commercial piggeries. All dead pigs were autopsied by blinded
veterinarians and deaths were assessed as due to usual commercial piggery-related
matters and not to their diets. There was also no difference in body weights between the
two dietary groups, initially, during, or at the end of the experiment. Initial weights in kg
were : non-GM-fed group: 6.71 + 1.05 (mean + standard deviation); GM-fed group: 6.87 +
0.97. Final weights were: non-GM-fed group: 100.42 + 22.84; GM-fed group: 101.75 +
21.92.

Sounds like both groups were equally healthy to me, which makes the claims of "inflammation" on the gross examination rather suspect.

If red = inflammation, then I guess my arteries are just full o' that stuff....

Frankly, if they blinded the veterinarians for the purposes of this one study, that is cruel and certainly detrimental to the veterinarians' continued livelihood.

If the veterinarians were previously blinded for some unrelated reason, then that would be different.

Yes, given that GMOs are no problem, you wonder why Monsanto spends millions of dollars fighting any labeling law rather than using the same money to educated people.

Since the introduction of the first genetically modified food crop - a tomato - in the early 1990s, genetically modified foods have been in the middle of controversy.

Consumers are confused about GMOs due to conflicting reports about their benefits and risks; many don't know who to trust.

We hear reports of GMOs leading to pesticide-resistant insects and weeds, yet some say gene technology may be a solution to world hunger via drought resistant plants. In the news we see things about the demise of the honey bees and we hear that Monsanto's chemicals are responsible. We, ourselves or our families or friends have increased food allergies and poor health.

U.S. agribusiness see substantial economic benefits, and yet the farmers are suffering from the single grow seed cycle and the dependence on single source fertilizer and pesticides.

Few issues touch every human being on the planet as much as food. And, as technology has opened new doors in producing enough food for our ever-growing world population, it has raised troubling new questions.

The U.S. government has established a rigorous approval process for biotech products that includes the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Moreover, since the first biotech crop hit the market in 1996, about 1 billion acres of U.S. farmland have been planted to biotech crops and trillions of pounds of U.S. soybeans and corn have been consumed worldwide, all with no credible reports of harm to human health. However, the EU won't grow GM foods and there is suspicious secrecy around the food industry that makes consumers mistrust this process. Furthermore, it is difficult to know who to trust when many, many of the former employees of agribusiness are now in our U.S. government and agribusiness are major contributors to our governments political processes.

There are many problems with GMOs and it isn't just the scientific research. We really need some transparency in reporting, we need some honesty from our government, and we need some accountability from agribusiness.

Now the research!
In the research to date, I don't see replication and I don't see peer review. Replication involves the process of repeating a study using the same methods, different subjects, and different experimenters. It can also involve applying the theory to new situations in an attempt to determine the generalizability to different situations. Replication, therefore, is important for a number of reasons, including (1) assurance that results are valid and reliable; (2) determination of generalizability or the role of extraneous variables; (3) application of results to real world situations; and (4) inspiration of new research combining previous findings from related studies.

It seems that we are just at the beginning of understanding the full implications of GMOs and all the spin that has been happening in order to confuse and confound. I don't think we need to fight with each other, I think we need to work alongside each other to figure out what is safe and what is not so we can protect our planet and the abundance of human life.

I do find it odd that opponents of GMOs seem to be so determined to lay health risks to consumers at the door of GMO products. I suppose it's because this plays better with the twitchy anti-science section of the population.

I do have some concerns about GMOs cross-fertilising with wild species and spreading their genes with the eventual effect that the selective advantage given to crops by the process of genetic modification is lost- see also antibiotics. I think this is a rational reason for some concern about use of GMOs but the anti-GMO campaigners do their cause no good at all with me my pushing bad science down my throat.

The farmer was sued for replanting seeds that he knew (because there is record of him getting them tested) came from Monsanto.

We're talking about Bowman? What he did was buy silo seed, spray the plants with Roundup, and harvest the seed from the survivors.

Sailor,

Yes, given that GMOs are no problem, you wonder why Monsanto spends millions of dollars fighting any labeling law rather than using the same money to educated people.

Not to defend the folks at Monsanto (who I'm sure are motivated by self interest like many of us) but why would someone willing accept labeling requirements that a) you know will drive off some of your customers, b) will cost you a substantial amount of money to implement; and c) will be the source of unending lawsuits when someone detects (real or imagined) that what is labelled one thing contains something else? Particularly when that product is sold in bulk and mixed and re-portioned at various times before getting to the consumer? Particularly if some stock person at the local store can mess it up?

you wonder why Monsanto spends millions of dollars fighting any labeling law

It's not really that odd...mandated labeling would hurt Monsanto financially, as many uninformed consumers would be turned off simply by the sight of a GMO label. That's why I disagree with the pro-labeling side of things...why should Monsanto have to incur financial penalties because of the public's unfounded fears?

Imagine there's a new movement out there that claims that only plants grown from seeds sown between 1 and 3PM are suitable for consumption, and all other plants are unsafe. Should corporations be required to label products with the time of day they were grown? What if this movement included millions of people?

The point is that for mandated labeling laws, you need to have evidence that the labeling is appropriate and useful. There's no evidence that a GMO label would do anything but continue to sow fear in an already undereducated public.

I don't want to ban GMO at this time―just Label it on food. Sure there'll be some that avoid it, so what, if it's safe, the stigma will fade, and scaremongers will soon be laughed at. If it's not harmful, as some $cientists claim, it'll all work out in the end.

Narad, I think the reference was to percy Schmeiser who claimed the 1000 acres of Roundup Ready canola blew on to his farm. He elsewhere claimed it fell off a truck going past his farm.

His worker, in his evidence in the court case, states that Percy Schmeiser had him spary "a good 3 acres of canola" with Roundup, harvest it separately and store it separately. This seed was then used to plant the next year.

Since the introduction of the first genetically modified food crop – a tomato – in the early 1990s, genetically modified foods have been in the middle of controversy.

Consumers are confused about GMOs due to conflicting reports about their benefits and risks; many don’t know who to trust.

Tina, plagiarism is generally frowned upon.

Narad, I think the reference was to percy Schmeiser who claimed the 1000 acres of Roundup Ready canola blew on to his farm.

Oh, right, he initially found it growing on the perimeter, right?

Yes. He sprayed 3 acres of canola on the side of one field and found most of the plants survived.

It is perfectly normal that, farmers spraying acres of their crops with herbicides that will kill them, just on the off chance there will be a survivor.

I'm kind of p!ssed about anti-GMO propaganda, as I swallowed a lot of it without much thought, and was only disabused of my misconceptions by some comments here, as I recall. Though my sympathies have always tended towards environmentalism, I don't like being lied to by anyone, and I'm always annoyed (mostly with myself) when I am fooled by misinformation.

The knee-jerk anti-technology tendencies I often see among those concerned about the environment both worry and scare me. I'm a technophile, and I like to think that technology will be the answer to a lot of the problems humans face, as insurmountable as they may seem right now.

Organic farms, companion plants, natural pest predators and hand-weeding, as laudable as they may be, are not going to feed 10 billion people.

He elsewhere claimed it fell off a truck going past his farm.

Funny thing, that's how I got my new wide-screen TV.

if it’s safe, the stigma will fade

Why is this necessarily true? In fact, I think it's likely the opposite. Just look at what happened to MSG.

Regarding the Monsanto farmers- wasn' t the problem that the judge in one case agreed the farmer took the seeds deliberately but seemed to rule that even if the seeds blew onto the farm accidentally, Monsanto could sue the farmer?

@sailor

Yes, given that GMOs are no problem, you wonder why Monsanto spends millions of dollars fighting any labeling law rather than using the same money to educated people.

What, exactly, is implied by this question?

1) If the foods were labeled, then third parties would be able to do experiments on GMO food safety. (Except that third parties are already doing such experiments)

2) If the foods were labeled, then people who avoided eating GMO food would not only be healthier than those who ate GMO food, but would healthier to such a large degree that it would be obvious that GMO food is unhealthy.

3) Something else.

[Off-topic: no comment preview? blah!]

There are more problems with the experimental design. the experimental unit in this experiment is not the pig, it is the pen of pigs. The treatment was not given to individual pigs, it was provided to each pen. At the end of the study, there were 4 pens total, 2 for each treatment. yet, the authors were claiming N values of almost 40. That is wrong and is horribly overstating their statistical power. The individual pig can only be the experimental unit if the individual pig is directly fed the diet. If the diet or treatment is given to the pen, then pen is the experimental unit. This is the standard methodology for research in animals sciences.

So Orac is saying that evolution is bad science since anti-GMO folks point out that GM crops produce bt resistant weeds and pests?

Orac's post is just another example of the horrible arguments in favor of GMOs. Anti-vaxxers are kooks, therefore let's lump the anti-GMOs in with them and take a couple examples of bad science (ignoring the bad science from the GMO crowd), and voila, anti-gmo folks are debunked.

Rather lame. But when you don't have the science on your side I guess folks like Orac have to resort to emotional appeals, like the people he criticizes.

Michael, the Judge ruled in the Canadian case that the farmer involved knew, or should have known, these were Roundup Ready canola and planted them deliberately without a license. How they got on the farm was deemed not relevant, because it was what happened next that mattered. Had the farmer just left the plants, not harvested the seed off them and not planted his whole farm to that seed, the judgement would not have gone against him.

The recent US Supreme Court ruling in the case brought by the organic industry has clarified the level below which Monsanto cannot make a claim. That is about 1%.

Doug, do you have anything other than strawmen to present?

This post was very specifically about some bad science that was published and pointed out why it was bad. Orac didn't state or imply that evolution was bad or that all statements made by anti-GMO people are wrong.

What is your scientific field Doug? Are you trained to read studies? Please provide us some citations to high-quality studies and we'll all have a look. But I imagine you're a drive-by, your high-dudgeon pearl-clutching is revealing . . .

Really, Doug?

Horrible arguments?

You mean, expecting people who wish to perform science to do it properly, and without an axe to grind, like the anti-gmo, anti-vax folks do?

I mean, learning how to control your experiment is junior high science. Why is it so difficult for folks performing studies like this one, or Tomlijenovic and Shaw, Goldman and Miller, etc to pay attention to one of the basic tenets of scientific experimentation?

#13 "They were initially going to introduce terminator seeds that would only produce crops with sterile seeds..."

OMG teh corn is trying to kill us!1!!!! GMOs are lik so bad!

#12 Shay - if you want to see natural 'corn' you need to look at teosinte grass. Any form of corn or maize is an unnatural mutant created by and dependent upon farmers - ears have been selected to the point where they cannot release their seeds naturally and self sow.

I love the irony of anti-GMO activists getting bent out of shape about corn. An unnatural food that only exists because it was was genetically modified thousands of years ago. I think it qualifies as a long term experiment, as do orange carrots, zucchinis, tomatoes, potatoes, cauliflower, and all the rest of them.

Qetzal,

I did misread the caption, sorry.

I looked at the image again, upside down this time, and I still don't see anything that I recognize as a logo. Logos on autopsy tables are usually on the sides, not on the working surface, where they would make the table hard to clean if they introduced any relief at all. I don't think that's a logo even in retrospect, but I would be willing to admit I was wrong if enough people agreed with you.

@ Natural News, yesterday:

Mike Adams, as a follow-up to the 'successful' global protest he rankled about recently ( "March on Monsanto"), now is helping to publicise the "Monsanto Video Revolt" which will commence in a few weeks: people are to make videos with those three words in the title and put them on video sites on the 'net thus causing HAVOC and CONFUSION and getting media attention.

( Isn't that what woo-meisters have been doing for the past several years- creating videos that lead to confusion?)

I'm sure the entire world will stand up and take notice and the powers-that-be will quake in their boots**.

** Do you wear still boots, Vladimir? David? Barry?

Haven't plants evolved to resist various pests and/or create symbiotic relationships with other plants to provide mutual benefits? Not to say that plants would have evolved to incorporate the Bt gene Monsanto put in to make them RoundUp Ready by themselves, but I suppose it.could be possible if someone were to work on developing a hybrid. (I am not a biologist, although I have lots of farming relatives, and DeKalb Ag used to hire high school students to do corn tasseling during summer vacation.)

Doug:

So Orac is saying that evolution is bad science since anti-GMO folks point out that GM crops produce bt resistant weeds and pests?

No, he said nothing even close to that. I don’t think he even mentioned evolution of bt resistance.

Rather lame. But when you don’t have the science on your side I guess folks like Orac have to resort to emotional appeals, like the people he criticizes.

You’re not really big in self awareness are you Doug?

I love the irony of anti-GMO activists getting bent out of shape about corn. An unnatural food that only exists because it was was genetically modified thousands of years ago. I think it qualifies as a long term experiment, as do orange carrots, zucchinis, tomatoes, potatoes, cauliflower, and all the rest of them.

Exactly. My GMO alarmist acquaintances get very huffy when I point this out to them and start sputtering things like "but now we're changing the actual MOLECULES!! BLAERGGH!"

Yet these same people laugh uproariously at things like Ray Comfort's display of total ignorance about selective breeding in the "bananas are evidence for creationism" video. It never occurs to them that their own viewpoint is just as biased.

#50+55: The argument that conventional breeding and selection also gets you new genes in the population is fine, but don't twist the conventional meaning of genetically modified when you do it. Cause having a phrase for that is useful.

@Dew, #33

$cientists

Just what is that supposed to mean?

Ass.

drksky - I assumed Dew wanted to avoid confusion with 5cientsts, so put a line through the S. But I cannot be sure.

#50+55: The argument that conventional breeding and selection also gets you new genes in the population is fine, but don’t twist the conventional meaning of genetically modified when you do it. Cause having a phrase for that is useful.

The problem I have is the vagueness about so many anti-GMO complaints. They tend not to be specific about what's so much worse about doing it deliberately versus the old fashioned approach taking advantage of new traits that form from random mutation (natural or deliberately induced by irradiation). To me, it's just a matter of increased control, not something fundamentally different.

Personally, I like the idea behind GM technology because we can use it to know what's in our food, rather than blindly trust in the benevolence and subservience of Mother Nature like many anti-GMO people seem to advocate.

@Bronze Dog
To avoid vagueness and be specific:-
Modern methods of genetic modification, unlike conventional breeding, involve the splicing of distantly related or completely unrelated genes into a gene sequence of a given species.
This involves a 'breaking' of the species barrier, something that does not normally occur naturally except occasionally when a pathogen attacks a host. Indeed, it is this ability of pathogenic microbes that insures their use as 'gene canons' in the splicing process, a process which is crude and unpredictable to say the least.
For every desired outcome achieved there are many unexpected traits that are expressed in the resulted progeny including toxic principles in many of the genetically modified plants produced to date and horrific mutations in the work on cloned sheep and salmon to name just a couple of examples in the animal work.
The pathogenic gene material has been shown to recombine with microbes in the human gut in the work of Pro. Terje Traavik at the University of Oslo creating super bugs, and the antibiotic marker genes widely used in splicing have contributed greatly to the spread of antibiotic resistance
Unleashing such a shoddily imprecise and unpredictable technology on the general population is what I call 'bad science'
Good science on the other hand will always have a 'duty of care' with the precautionary principle at it's very core.
I guess most of the comments here prove that modern science has sold it's soul to the highest bidder.To avoid vagueness and be specific:-
Modern methods of genetic modification, unlike conventional breeding, involve the splicing of distantly related or completely unrelated genes into a gene sequence of a given species.
This involves a 'breaking' of the species barrier, something that does not normally occur naturally except occasionally when a pathogen attacks a host. Indeed, it is this ability of pathogenic microbes that insures their use as 'gene canons' in the splicing process, a process which is crude and unpredictable to say the least.
For every desired outcome achieved there are many unexpected traits that are expressed in the resulted progeny including toxic principles in many of the genetically modified plants produced to date and horrific mutations in the work on cloned sheep and salmon to name just a couple of examples in the animal work.
The pathogenic gene material has been shown to recombine with microbes in the human gut in the work of Pro. Terje Traavik at the University of Oslo creating super bugs, and the antibiotic marker genes widely used in splicing have contributed greatly to the spread of antibiotic resistance
Unleashing such a shoddily imprecise and unpredictable technology on the general population is what I call 'bad science'
Good science on the other hand will always have a 'duty of care' with the precautionary principle at it's very core.
I guess most of the comments here prove that modern science has sold it's soul to the highest bidder.

Modern methods of genetic modification, unlike conventional breeding, involve the splicing of distantly related or completely unrelated genes into a gene sequence of a given species.
This involves a ‘breaking’ of the species barrier, something that does not normally occur naturally except occasionally when a pathogen attacks a host. Indeed, it is this ability of pathogenic microbes that insures their use as ‘gene canons’ in the splicing process, a process which is crude and unpredictable to say the least.

To me, this mention of a species barrier sounds like Platonism or a declaration of sacred ground via the naturalistic fallacy. Genes are genes. How a new gene gets into the genome doesn't really matter all that much in how it behaves. Inserting a gene and having the same gene mutate from a spare copy or a "junk" sequence doesn't affect the result.

For every desired outcome achieved there are many unexpected traits that are expressed in the resulted progeny including toxic principles in many of the genetically modified plants produced to date and horrific mutations in the work on cloned sheep and salmon to name just a couple of examples in the animal work.

1. You'll have to get more specific about how the insertion of individual genes relates to cloning animals.

2. Nature and breeders are constantly doing the same thing on a random or semi-random basis and no one complains.

The pathogenic gene material has been shown to recombine with microbes in the human gut in the work of Pro. Terje Traavik at the University of Oslo creating super bugs, and the antibiotic marker genes widely used in splicing have contributed greatly to the spread of antibiotic resistance

A link would be nice. Why wouldn't this also be a risk with conventionally bred plants? What's so fundamentally different about GM genes once they're inside the crop's genome?

Unleashing such a shoddily imprecise and unpredictable technology on the general population is what I call ‘bad science’
Good science on the other hand will always have a ‘duty of care’ with the precautionary principle at it’s very core.

From what I see so far, the same argument applies for conventionally bred plants as well. The double standard I see is that conventional breeding allowed us to get similar results while being blissfully ignorant of the details. It gets grandfathered in because it's easier to not think about it. If there's a problem with a GM crop, I'd think it'd be easier to track down and shut down the dangerous strain.

I guess most of the comments here prove that modern science has sold it’s soul to the highest bidder.

You're rather casual with that sort of accusation, which doesn't speak well of your critical thinking abilities or your desire to approach the topic seriously. Myself, I'm just a skeptic/atheist blogger who tries to pay attention to science and pseudoscience. My degree is in spatial science, so if anyone puts a lot of money in my pocket, it'll be because I drew an informative map.

"I guess most of the comments here prove that modern science has sold it’s soul to the highest bidder."

So where's my check?

This involves a ‘breaking’ of the species barrier

Breaking? "Species barrier"? Human-made abstractions. Nature doesn't care about our rules.

My opinion on GMO has generally been that the genetic modification itself is in all likelihood harmless. Although a plant that self produces pesticide could be worrisome, if it occurred on the edible parts.

What one does because they have genetically modified plants seems more likely to create problems. Spraying extra herbicide because your crop is resistant to it does not seem good. A tendency to even less genetic diversity in critical food crops could be very bad if a disease or pest decided it liked the GMO crop. Cross pollination of herbicide resistance to pest species. The actions taken by GMO patent holders against farmers (in some cases), And, other side effects.

On the other hand drought resistance or better yields with less fertilizer and less water could have huge positive impacts in the areas of water and energy conservation. So, I guess I am not a GMO bad or GMO good person, but more of a GMO "it depends" person.

sailor
June 17, 2013
"Yes, given that GMOs are no problem, you wonder
why Monsanto spends millions of dollars fighting
any labeling law rather than using the same money
to educated people."

I don't like the court ruling which prevents a competing dairy from stating a fact on their label ("no artificial growth hormones" or something like that). It seems politically wrong.

However, from a practical point of view, I am not surprised that Monsanto would focus on lawsuits rather than education. Generic staple crops need to be sold to the entire population, and people are don't respond well to education. Besides, a few million bucks pays for a lot of lawyers and long-term court rulings, but it doesn't pay for much temporary TV time. Right or wrong, their approach makes sense for them.

herr doktor bimler
June 19, 2013
"'This involves a ‘breaking’ of the species barrier'
Breaking? “Species barrier”? Human-made
abstractions. Nature doesn’t care about our rules"

I think Texas has a law about "breaking the species barrier" on a farm, but it doesn't have anything to do with farming.

Narad
June 17, 2013
"We’re talking about Bowman? What he did
was buy silo seed, spray the plants with
Roundup, and harvest the seed from the survivors."

No, we are talking about Percy Schmeiser. He is the origin of a lot of the "sued because Monsanto seeds blew onto your property" claims.

It is true that some seeds blew onto the edge of his property and some grew. He took seeds from the plants which appeared to be herbicide resistant, planted them on a section of his farm as a test to confirm that they were indeed Roundup seeds. Upon the positive results, he then took seeds from the test batch and planted them.

In both cases, it seems obvious that the people being sued knew what they were doing, and did so because they wanted to use Monsanto's product without paying for it. They consciously challenged the licensing system and lost. They were not victims of circumstance.

I have a lot of sympathy for their legal arguments, and I am not sure if the courts are correct in rejecting patent exhaustion (essentially ruling that 2nd-generation seeds are not inherently part of the intended use for which the 1st-generation planting was licensed). It seems to me that Monsanto would have to engineer seeds which don't produce a 2nd generation with so little help.

Charles Clearwater

Modern methods of genetic modification, unlike conventional breeding, involve the splicing of distantly related or completely unrelated genes into a gene sequence of a given species.
This involves a ‘breaking’ of the species barrier, something that does not normally occur naturally except occasionally when a pathogen attacks a host. Indeed, it is this ability of pathogenic microbes that insures their use as ‘gene canons’ in the splicing process, a process which is crude and unpredictable to say the least.

“Breaking the species barrier” occurs all the time. In fact a good percentage of your genome is nucleic acid acquired from viruses. Most of the wheat grown in the world has genes recently moved across from wild grasses, deliberately so to provide things like rust resistance.

For every desired outcome achieved there are many unexpected traits that are expressed in the resulted progeny including toxic principles in many of the genetically modified plants produced to date and horrific mutations in the work on cloned sheep and salmon to name just a couple of examples in the animal work.

Cloning and genetic modification are two different things. Many of the genetically modified plants don’t have “toxic principles” at least not more so than the parental plant. This is tested for.

The pathogenic gene material has been shown to recombine with microbes in the human gut in the work of Pro. Terje Traavik at the University of Oslo creating super bugs, and the antibiotic marker genes widely used in splicing have contributed greatly to the spread of antibiotic resistance

Traavik has shown no such thing. He has speculated about it, but without evidence. In the same way that he once claimed Bt corn in the Philippines caused allergies. Nine years later, no evidence of this happening has been presented.

Good science on the other hand will always have a ‘duty of care’ with the precautionary principle at it’s very core.

The precautionary principle is a political construct. It has no place in science.

I guess most of the comments here prove that modern science has sold it’s soul to the highest bidder.

The ‘when you can’t win on evidence accuse others of being shills’ gambit.

Let's see now. The standard plasmid cloning vectors typically contain an ampicillin resistance gene, and some are also designed to carry a neomycin resistance gene. The amp resistance marker allows us to select for plasmid uptake into the bacteria, and the neomycin resistance marker allows us to select for mammalian cells that have received a dose of the plasmid DNA. There are also a few plasmids engineered to have kanamycin resistance.

In other words, the cloning vectors used in the laboratory do not contain scary killer multiple antibiotic resistance genes, but rather some commonplace and limited selection markers.

None of this has anything to do with the evolution of multiple antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria. The control over the use of antibiotic resistance markers in the lab goes back to the Asilomar meeting in the mid 1970s. The discovery of multiple antibiotic resistance in human pathogens came long before then, and long before genetic engineering -- in fact, it was a clue that plasmids are passed back and forth routinely among bacteria, and this led to discoveries that ultimately led to the introduction of genetic engineering and cloning.

As for all the rest of the discussion about "breaking the species barrier" and so forth, perhaps we ought to remind ourselves that DNA is DNA, and it exists in everything from ancient microbes to modern microbes to all the modern plants and animals. Only a few viruses use RNA as a genetic carrier, and they can only do this because they take advantage of the cells they infect to make DNA as the intermediate. There is no species barrier in terms of the makeup of the genetic material, and we know that our own DNA is the product of lots of mixing and churning. Within this context of DNA getting moved around within our own genomes over the course of evolution, it is also true that the sequences that code for the workhorse proteins that run the cells are themselves very similar from one species to another. One journal not too long ago pointed out that we humans share the genetic information in a banana at about the fifty percent level. That suggests pretty strongly that the organisms that predated the split between plants and animals already carried the modern complement of biochemical pathways to a great extent.

What should this mean to the consumer, who is, most of the time, not a practicing molecular biologist? Mostly, we should remind people that the DNA within our cells is derived from our younger cells, going back to the fertilized egg, and that protection of our genomes is something that our cells do aggressively and fairly efficiently. Replication of our DNA occurs via synthetic processes in the cells, and has to happen via the very long chromosomal DNA strands, each one being hundreds of millions of nucleotides long. It's true that we eat lots of DNA because it's a component of food. Our digestive systems are built to break down DNA in food into nutritional components which we recycle as biological building blocks. It doesn't much matter whether that DNA came from a chicken or a tomato, it's all food to our system.

In brief, adding a few nucleotides to part of the plant genome so that it carries out one single solitary extra enzymatic reaction, namely the one that cuts Roundup into 2 ordinary biological molecules, and does so using an enzyme that is made in plenty of other species, does not seem that scary to me. As we discussed on this board long ago, you already get that same enzyme and the DNA that codes for it in the normally occurring bacteria that come along with the produce you buy at the grocery store.

Conspicuous Carl,

I don’t like the court ruling which prevents a competing dairy from stating a fact on their label (“no artificial growth hormones” or something like that). It seems politically wrong.

I tend to agree with you, but we have to bear in mind that are very similar hormone levels (BST and IGF1) in milk from untreated and rBST-treated cows, and no significant nutritional differences. The labeling isn't really very useful unless you want to boycott milk from rBST cows because of the animal welfare issues, which are what concern me. It might be worth mentioning that rBST use reduces the amount of greenhouse gases produced.

Personally I refuse to buy milk from dairies that use homeopathy to treat their cows (Yeo Valley in the UK, I'm looking at you).

Conspicuous Carl,

It seems to me that Monsanto would have to engineer seeds which don’t produce a 2nd generation with so little help.

They already have, but were persuaded not to develop them commercially.

That suggests pretty strongly that the organisms that predated the split between plants and animals already carried the modern complement of biochemical pathways to a great extent.
The way that we can *eat* most other life-forms suggests the same thing.

@Charles Clearwater, June 19, 2013 (#60)

“Modern methods of genetic modification, unlike conventional breeding, involve the splicing of distantly related or completely unrelated genes into a gene sequence of a given species.”

They could do. They could also involve genes in the same genus or even use more copies of a gene already present in the original plant. In some case the GE isn’t in the final product at all, just used for testing aspects. Like all techniques/tools, GE can be used a wide range of ways.

“This involves a ‘breaking’ of the species barrier,”

Genes don’t really have a ‘species barrier’ in that way.

“something that does not normally occur naturally except occasionally when a pathogen attacks a host.”

Actually it also occurs in symbiotic relationships too, where two different species both benefit from eachother. There’s some evidence that it occurs as part of normal development, too.

“Indeed, it is this ability of pathogenic microbes that insures their use as ‘gene canons’ in the splicing process, a process which is crude and unpredictable to say the least.”

This is hand-waving.

“For every desired outcome achieved there are many unexpected traits that are expressed in the resulted progeny including toxic principles in many of the genetically modified plants produced to date”

Evidence wanted.

“and horrific mutations in the work on cloned sheep and salmon to name just a couple of examples in the animal work.”

Cloning animals hasn't much to do with GMOs per se, let alone plant GMOs.

And so on.

“I guess most of the comments here prove that modern science has sold it’s soul to the highest bidder.”

Straw-man. You’d find most academic research scientists aren’t paid that way—in fact, aren't paid especially well at all—and mostly care for accuracy. (There will always be a few exceptions, as is the case for any type of career.)

The "species barrier" nonsense is still gnawing at me. It stinks of the idea of genetic purity. There is no such thing.

Krebiozen
June 20, 2013

Conspicuous Carl,

I tend to agree with you, but we have to bear in
mind that are very similar hormone levels (BST and
IGF1) in milk from untreated and rBST-treated cows,
and no significant nutritional differences.

I know, and I actually avoided the "no rbst" brands because I thought it was empty marketing. But if its a fact, they should be able to say it. The same goes for "organic". They should be free to declare adherence to rules which don't matter.

Normal preamble… I am a Monsanto employee, the thoughts and various whimsies contained in the following are entirely my own and not those of my employer. (this, by the way is the best way to tell a real Monsanto employee… we’re straight up told to tell folk who we work for when discussing things, which gets rather old, hence use of terms such as whimsies)

Modern methods of genetic modification, unlike conventional breeding, involve the splicing of distantly related or completely unrelated genes into a gene sequence of a given species.

Actually, they involve the insertion (splicing is a nice word, scary souding and all, but has a somewhat different technical meaning, which rather illustrates where you’re coming from I think), of exactly homologous genes all the way through spectacularly distantly related genes (it is however false that the genes are unrelated… the relationship just happens in many cases to be utterly ancient)) plus attendant sequences to assist in expression and translation (which again, may be sourced from the species itself, although far more commonly from a viral or viral/synthetic source) into the genome (“gene sequence” again is something with a technical meaning (probably many, depending on which flavor of biology you prefer) of a given species.

blah blah species barrier

This appears to have been dealt with well upthread, and thus I shall merely mock you here with a blah or two.

For every desired outcome achieved there are many unexpected traits that are expressed in the resulted progeny including toxic principles in many of the genetically modified plants produced to date and horrific mutations in the work on cloned sheep and salmon to name just a couple of examples in the animal work.

Partially true, but largely meaningless. Randomly blasting fragments of DNA into a genome is a terribly good way to produce monsterous phenotypes – you simply hope to knock out vital genes and thus characterize what they are for, although many plants are a pain in the ass to do this with due to genome duplications…. However… this isn’t really of great import when talking about commercial transgenics, because, you see, we actually check for that – any transgenic event (as single transformation of a given sequence into the target species) that lands in a gene (or even particularly near one) will never make it past early testing – either it’ll be so disruptive that it causes negative effects, or, should it disrupt something non-vital it’ll be picked up by molecular analysis (those pesky regulators are sticklers for knowing where your event lies). So these horrible mutations which can be produced by genetic modification (and have been so to greatly increase the sum of human knowledge I might add) will never see the light of day as an agricultural product.

The pathogenic gene material has been shown to recombine with microbes in the human gut in the work of Pro. Terje Traavik at the University of Oslo creating super bugs, and the antibiotic marker genes widely used in splicing have contributed greatly to the spread of antibiotic resistance
Pathogenic, again, means something, and you’re misusing it here. I assume for effect. Although I shan’t rule out good ole Dunning-Kruger. Citation needed… I do have one for Terje Traavik, but it would appear that you simply aren’t up to date with Prof. Traavik’s work:-
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/5/170/
concludes – “Natural transformation occurring among members of the bacterial community in the lower GIT remains to be demonstrated.”.
One must also be mindful that the antibiotics and selection techniques utilized in plants are different (from what I recall the most used marker genes are to stuff which is commonly, and was commonly prior to GMOs being mainstream, stuff that many species of bacteria were already resistant to (because the E.coli and Agrobacterium strains used in transformation are kept weak as weak can be to facilitate selection – you don’t need to use the newest and greatest antibiotics to knock them on their ass, you can, at times, just look at them funny) – also the main selection markers used to check you have transformed plants are rather predictably herbicide tolerance genes – and nobody, I should hope, is overly concerned about roundup resistant bugs (weeds is another issue obviously, but if you have weeds growing in your guy I suggest perhaps you have bigger issues)

Unleashing such a shoddily imprecise and unpredictable technology on the general population is what I call ‘bad science’

Whereas unleashing such a shoddily imprecise and unpredictable rant about a topic you haven’t the first clue about is simply bad form.

I guess most of the comments here prove that modern science has sold it’s soul to the highest bidder.

This would certainly explain the wholesale acceptance of AGW by the scientific community at large given that opposition to such *only* plays into the hands of an industry which utterly dwarfs all of Agriculture, nevermind simply the small piece of agriculture which Monsanto represents (Net revenue of $10-$20Bn p/a isn’t small change to be sure, but other companies in the food chain make much more (ADM net revenue is ~$80Bn) and oil companies, who one might expect have the capacity to actually buy scientists… well… BP has net revenues closer to $300Bn…. No doubt however your explanation is correct. The companies with the least money can buy scientific opinion, those with the most money… well, they’re too busy or something, that probably explains it.

It is unfortunate that virtually all safety testing of genetically modified food products focus on acute reactions when intuitively it is the potential for chronic effects that is most concerning. We have millions of years of adaptation and symbiosis with the biosphere, and somehow we think we can create whole new species that could not occur in nature by splicing together segments of completely different species (such as GM salmon or BT corn) and as long as it is cosmetically acceptable and doesn't kill someone the moment they touch it assume it is safe. In my opinion any particular transgenic requires consistent and regular consumption by a study group for at least three generations before it should be allowed to market.

However the health concerns aside, genetic modification of food crops and animals is an attempt at masking the inherent problems of our unsustainable agricultural practices, namely synthetic chemical and petroleum energy intensive monoculture. We're placing plants in a completely alien environment and then wondering why nature is fighting back. We create monocultures, so pests have a feeding frenzy. We plant in rows leaving deserts between them, so nature tries to fill it. We engineer the crops to produce their own pesticides and tolerate being drenched in herbicides, so nature denies us the pollinators we need to grow the crops and produces super weeds to defeat our herbicides. In turn, we start using stronger and stronger herbicides... when will we discover the MRSA of weeds? Perpetual escalation always ends in mutually assured destruction.

I personally do my best to avoid genetically modified "foods" however that is relatively easy given I consider the major modified crops - wheat, corn, and soy - to be unsuitable for regular human consumption anyway. In addition, the notion that GMOs will "feed the starving people of the world," is an obfuscation of the real problem - there are too many people.

1. What is the basis for your concern about chronic exposure? How are inserted genes significantly different from those that form from natural mutations and modifications brought about by conventional breeding? These plants we call "crops" were already quite unnatural before we started tinkering with genes in a more direct manner. They would have never developed in nature without human effort and couldn't survive or reproduce on their own. What about chronic health concerns about new cultivars brought about by conventional breeding and natural mutation?

2. What's all this holier-than-thou talk about natural species versus artificial species? Genes are genes. They are what they are, regardless of their origin. It's also kind of creepy, since it's sounds like you believe in a concept of genetic purity. No. Such. Thing.

3. Genetic modification and monocultures are two entirely different concepts. We know monocultures are a problem.

In addition, the notion that GMOs will “feed the starving people of the world,” is an obfuscation of the real problem – there are too many people.

So - let 'em starve?

Not a surprise to see Orac again unable to refer to any true science, ignoring the problems with basic safety in corporate products & again denying the avoidable injuries caused to a small, but growing, percentage of our kids who are susceptible to being permanently damaged or killed by inadvertant vaccination.

One of Orac's problems is that he is fully aware of the truth & the science, but knowingly spouts lies & deceptions anyway. He has violated every tenet that should guide scientific inquiry & commentary.

He disingenuously associates extreme examples of ignorance (chemtrails, bigfoot, 911 theories) with honest people trying to get to the truth about unregulated & toxic consequences in genetic engineering of our food and the bloated & unsafely administered vaccination schedule.

He helps to obscure the genuine questions about the science, application & administration of these technologies & the lack of meaningful safety studies (as well as changes in technological methods, regulations & legislation).

Rules are crafted to favor profit potential rather than safety through science. Studies pretend to be science-based, having credentialed authors (like Orac) willing to sacrifice their integrity & reputations for bribes or job security, no matter the consequences to the general public.

His original article, like everything Orac blogs about, lacks independent science references and relies on industry-sponsored "science" or industry-dependent minions (such as Orac) who pander to drug companies or govt regulators to gain materially.

I may expose all the problems with this "article" in the future, as I have done with other "articles" Orac has posted.

For right now, I'm just noting his fact-less & fact-twisted antics

I'm researching & communicating with regulators & industry. I have suspended detailed time-consuming blog posting... for the moment...

I may expose all the problems with this “article” in the future, as I have done with other “articles” Orac has posted.

What like in this comment of yours? http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/26/cancer-treatment-centers-o…

Michael, you have an odd idea of what constitutes a fact.

It is unfortunate that virtually all safety testing of genetically modified food products focus on acute reactions when intuitively it is the potential for chronic effects that is most concerning.

Ignoring of course the long term multigenerational studies which are performed and show no chronic effects. Or, y'know, the abject lack of any plausible mechanism by which chronic effects would occur.

and somehow we think we can create whole new species

Perhaps this is semantics, although I feel not (meaningful terminology appears to be something the anti-GM movement cares not one fig about), but these aren't new species. They are at best (and at a push) new varieties of already extant species.

In my opinion any particular transgenic requires consistent and regular consumption by a study group for at least three generations before it should be allowed to market.

One assumes if 3 generations were used you'd demand 5, or 10, or whatever made it economically non-viable to do GMOs... however given that multigenerational studies have been done, and a recent review of the literature suggests they are not worthwhile and that 90 day studies are sufficient... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399 one wonders exactly what foundation other than fantasy your demand for multigenerational studies rests on?

genetic modification of food crops and animals is an attempt at masking the inherent problems of our unsustainable agricultural practices, namely synthetic chemical and petroleum energy intensive monoculture.

It really isn't. Bt for instance doesn't mask the use of synthetic chemicals, it replaces it. RR merely switches to an easier to use chemical input, other efforts target other areas (my own current are of research has bugger all to do with altering the chemicals used and simply looks to increase the intrinsic yield of crop plants under stress conditions)

We plant in rows leaving deserts between them, so nature tries to fill it.

Deserts? You must live by some really odd farmers, because row cropping rather relies on canopy closure and no-gaps in order to maximize the capture of sunlight (both Soy and Corn are moving to smaller spacing)

. We engineer the crops to produce their own pesticides and tolerate being drenched in herbicides, so nature denies us the pollinators we need to grow the crops and produces super weeds to defeat our herbicides.

"Drenched" in herbicides? I suppose if you consider a 0.5ml (ish) application of herbicide drenching... (back of the envelope calculation taking into account the planting density of corn (about 28,000 to 36,000 plants per acre) and the application rates of glyphosate mixes suggested)...

Denied pollinators? What on earth are you on about? One assumes you're perfectly aware that links between GM production and CCD (I assume that is what you're talkign about in terms of pollinators anyway...) is utterly spurious.

In addition, the notion that GMOs will “feed the starving people of the world,” is an obfuscation of the real problem – there are too many people.

I guess you'll be signing up then to watch your friends and family starve to death - it's for the good of the planet after all.

I’m researching & communicating with regulators & industry. I have suspended detailed time-consuming blog posting… for the moment…

Oooooh, we so scared.
Good that you're taking a break. Posting drivel is so tiring.

Michael Polidori is gullible and/or ignorant enough to take vet and naturopath Joel Wallach's 'Dead Doctors Don't Lie' seriously. This is crankery of a high degree indeed.

People in China who live for 250 years? Cystic fibrosis (not a genetic disorder, he claims) cured with selenium supplements? Diabetes is the result of a chromium and vanadium deficiency? Cardiomyopathy is also due to selenium deficiency? Wallach promotes all these idiotic beliefs and more.

There's also the unfortunate incident of a patient under his care dying while being chelated.

Ewan R

Normal preamble… I am a Monsanto employee

So, you you should be able answer something I have always wondered about - what does roast puppy taste like?

I have suspended detailed time-consuming blog posting…

One can only hope that you'll continue revolutionizing physics in YouTube comments.

So, you you should be able answer something I have always wondered about – what does roast puppy taste like?

Broccoli.
At least our version does, for some reason we have been told it is uncommercializable though. Which is odd because I didn't see anything come up in the allergen hit database.

I'm reminded of an urban legend behind Kentucky Fried Chicken's name change to KFC. One explanation I heard from a KFC spokesperson on TV was that people like initialisms and acronyms. Another, more likely, one I've heard is that they wanted to take people's mind off of "Fried" and the fatty connotation that comes with it. There are a lot of stupid marketing departments out there, as well as marketing departments that assume customers are largely stupid. Of course, the latter tend to be right a lot of the time.

The crazy urban legend one was that KFC had genetically engineered monstrous mutant chickens for mass production pen farming who no longer legally qualified as chickens, so government regulations required them to change the name of the franchise, but apparently not the names on the menus.

Bronze Dog: what really cracks me up about that urban legend was that some versions claimed the chickens were genetically engineered to be boneless, and conveniently tube-shaped for easier processing. Which, of course, means that anybody who forwards that to you has never actually seen a KFC or watched one of their commercials, as apart from their new experimental boneless wing product, they have always sold bone-in chicken.

In fact, so clearly are they *not* massively engineered that you can do what I like to do whenever I have KFC: pick apart the wings to see the fingerprints of evolution. Chickens still have claws on their thumbs, like the good little dinosaurs they really are. ;-)

Oh, minor addendum: they do use boneless chicken in their sandwiches, for obvious reasons. ;-)

The crazy urban legend one was that KFC had genetically engineered monstrous mutant chickens for mass production pen farming who no longer legally qualified as chickens, so government regulations required them to change the name of the franchise, but apparently not the names on the menus.

There is a similar legend about McDonald's, claiming that they buy their meat from a company called "100% Beef" so they can say their burgers are 100% beef.

Both of these legends are debunked on Snopes.com if people are interested in the details.

"Bronze Dog
June 22, 2013

1. What is the basis for your concern about chronic exposure? How are inserted genes significantly different from those that form from natural mutations and modifications brought about by conventional breeding? These plants we call “crops” were already quite unnatural before we started tinkering with genes in a more direct manner. They would have never developed in nature without human effort and couldn’t survive or reproduce on their own."

Ah, but they can. Terminator seeds are currently off the market. GM wheat, corn, and soy, are self replicating. For comparison, mules are typically sterile. Show me a corn crop that has naturally bred with a bacterium. Show me a fish that has naturally bred with a fish of an entirely different species. Is it possible after a million years of evolution? Sure. After nature has repeatedly bred out the lines that proved unfavorable to the biosphere. Instead we strictly replicate the lines that are favorable to profits with total disregard to the biosphere.

A species that lives a hundred years tampering with processes that span millions. Kinda defines arrogance.

"3. Genetic modification and monocultures are two entirely different concepts. We know monocultures are a problem."
Oh do you now? So, tell me, what role does genetic modification have in polyculture? In permaculture? Genetic modification is an affront to systems engineering.

"TBruce
June 23, 2013

In addition, the notion that GMOs will “feed the starving people of the world,” is an obfuscation of the real problem – there are too many people.

So – let ‘em starve?
"
No. But stop supplying them with the excess calories they need to breed.

"Ignoring of course the long term multigenerational studies which are performed and show no chronic effects."
On rodents. Because mice always translate to humans.

"but these aren’t new species. "
That depends on how you define a species, which is obviously subjective. Somehow I think a species of corn that does not inherently produce a pesticide might just be a different species than one that does.

"One assumes if 3 generations were used you’d demand 5, or 10, or whatever made it economically non-viable to do GMOs… however given that multigenerational studies have been done, and a recent review of the literature suggests they are not worthwhile and that 90 day studies are sufficient… http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399 one wonders exactly what foundation other than fantasy your demand for multigenerational studies rests on?"
Intuition. Even Einstein thought it was a good idea.

"It really isn’t. Bt for instance doesn’t mask the use of synthetic chemicals, it replaces it."
Precisely. It is a mask. Synthethic chemicals are entirely unnecessary. Bt is a natural bacterium with limited evidence of adverse effect in humans. But the use of Bt is a symptom of an unsustainable practice - monoculture. However Bt transgenics are granted GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) status, meaning no further safety testing is called for. Nevermind that Bt transgenics are commonly produced using microprojectile bombardment which is prone to random gene deletion and aberrant mutation. As long as it looks OK, it's safe, right?

"Deserts? You must live by some really odd farmers, because row cropping rather relies on canopy closure and no-gaps in order to maximize the capture of sunlight (both Soy and Corn are moving to smaller spacing)"

Where there are rows, there is bare soil.

"“Drenched” in herbicides? I suppose if you consider a 0.5ml (ish) application of herbicide drenching… (back of the envelope calculation taking into account the planting density of corn (about 28,000 to 36,000 plants per acre) and the application rates of glyphosate mixes suggested)…"
As a farmer who uses zero herbicides, I do. Glyphosate is an established environmental toxin and carcinogen with a soil half-life ranging from weeks to several months depending on soil microbial activity. Its agricultural use should be banned.

"One assumes you’re perfectly aware that links between GM production and CCD (I assume that is what you’re talkign about in terms of pollinators anyway…) is utterly spurious."
An opinion totally ignorant of evidence and risk.

"I guess you’ll be signing up then to watch your friends and family starve to death – it’s for the good of the planet after all."
Are you going to quote Revelations, as well?

APC,

These plants we call “crops” were already quite unnatural before we started tinkering with genes in a more direct manner. They would have never developed in nature without human effort and couldn’t survive or reproduce on their own.

Ah, but they can. Terminator seeds are currently off the market. GM wheat, corn, and soy, are self replicating. For comparison, mules are typically sterile.

You miss the point. Bronze Dog was referring to regular crops, not GM. Selective breeding, which humans have been doing for thousands of years, results in a number of plants that couldn't survive or reproduce on their own.What mules have to do with it, I don't know, unless you are suggesting that natural "abominations" cannot reproduce, while human abominations can, which is just silly.

Show me a corn crop that has naturally bred with a bacterium.

Haven't you heard of horizontal gene transfer?

Show me a fish that has naturally bred with a fish of an entirely different species. Is it possible after a million years of evolution? Sure.

Please tell me you don't think GM foods are the result of interbreeding different species.

After nature has repeatedly bred out the lines that proved unfavorable to the biosphere. Instead we strictly replicate the lines that are favorable to profits with total disregard to the biosphere.

Nature doesn't give a rat's posterior about the biosphere. A species will expand until something stops it. Humans are part of the biosphere too, you know.

A species that lives a hundred years tampering with processes that span millions. Kinda defines arrogance.

Worrying about a natural experiment that is destined to be utterly destroyed in a couple of billion years kinda defines futility. Plenty of species have made a mark on the planet that last millions of years.

there are too many people.
So – let ‘em starve?

No. But stop supplying them with the excess calories they need to breed.

What an obnoxious sentiment. Shall we start with your family? Thought not. Whose family shall we start with then?

“Ignoring of course the long term multigenerational studies which are performed and show no chronic effects.”

On rodents. Because mice always translate to humans.

Not just rodents, and don't forget the billions of human meals, without a trace of any adverse effects.

“but these aren’t new species. ”

That depends on how you define a species, which is obviously subjective.

It isn't subjective, there are some minor disagreements, but none of the GMOs we have seen thus far are different species by any definition I have seen. They are far too similar to the species they are based on.

Somehow I think a species of corn that does not inherently produce a pesticide might just be a different species than one that does.

Plenty of plants naturally produce toxins of one sort or another to protect themselves, this isn't unusual.

Intuition. Even Einstein thought it was a good idea.

I don't think Einstein meant that you can make stuff up and insist it's true without any evidence to support it.

It really isn’t. Bt for instance doesn’t mask the use of synthetic chemicals, it replaces it.

Precisely. It is a mask. Synthethic chemicals are entirely unnecessary.

You misunderstand. Bt isn't a mask, it allows you to increase yield without synthetic chemicals.

Bt is a natural bacterium with limited evidence of adverse effect in humans. But the use of Bt is a symptom of an unsustainable practice – monoculture. However Bt transgenics are granted GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) status, meaning no further safety testing is called for. Nevermind that Bt transgenics are commonly produced using microprojectile bombardment which is prone to random gene deletion and aberrant mutation. As long as it looks OK, it’s safe, right?

I don't really follow your point. You know what else is prone to random gene deletion and aberrant mutation? Organic plants, which are exposed to natural background radiation, and natural UV light.

Glyphosate is an established environmental toxin and carcinogen with a soil half-life ranging from weeks to several months depending on soil microbial activity. Its agricultural use should be banned.

An "established environmental toxin and carcinogen"? Citation?

One assumes you’re perfectly aware that links between GM production and CCD (I assume that is what you’re talkign about in terms of pollinators anyway…) is utterly spurious.

An opinion totally ignorant of evidence and risk.

Show us some evidence then. Making unsupported claims doesn't cut it here.

I guess you’ll be signing up then to watch your friends and family starve to death – it’s for the good of the planet after all.

Are you going to quote Revelations, as well?

You're the one suggesting we starve people just enough to make them infertile. Since it's your idea it's only fair that you should be first in the queue. However, I suspect you are thinking of people of a different color far away where you won't have to watch them suffer. Which I think is monstrous.

APC: If you think choosing to let the world starve (and yes, starving to the point of infertility *is* starving, and actually probably even crueler than killing them outright since you condemn them quite consciously to a lifetime of pain) is in any way sustainable . . . well. Enjoy the global war you will have created. BTW, people in starvation zones still breed, so I do not think you really understand what you are talking about.

Bt is a natural bacterium with limited evidence of adverse effect in humans. But the use of Bt is a symptom of an unsustainable practice – monoculture.

Bt-corn is beneficial whether you are practicing monoculture or not, and monoculture is widespread in GMO-free and even organic farms.

BTW, if you are concerned about creatures artificially created that cannot survive without human assistance and which are extremely vulnerable due to monoculture, why do you not focus your ire upon the Cavendish banana?

Point of fact: many Monsanto seed licenses require planting "refuges" as a percentage of acreage. The refuges are non-GMO crops designed to act as buffers to help prevent evolution of resistance, by giving a place for non-resistant pests to out-compete resistant pests.

Looks like I missed APC's nonsense while I was taking a break from RI. Thanks for doing your part, Kreb.

Of course, I'm disgusted with the starvation sentiment as well as the implicit racism and wingnuttery/trollish libertarianism I sense behind it.

It's counter-intuitive, but it seems to me that famine can provide incentives to have more children. Reproductive rates are high in areas of famine in part because the people are essentially trying to ensure there is a next generation by producing higher numbers so some can survive. They also tend to put children to work as farmhands and scroungers, thinking they can get a net increase in food for their family that way. If we can make GMO crops for them that produce higher or more reliable yields with less work, we'll remove those incentives that lead to population explosions.

Access to contraception also helps because it makes having a child a conscious decision to be approached sensibly, rather than an accident viewed as an inevitable consequence of having sexual instincts.

Overall, the general solution to overpopulation is to increase quality of life. Make it easier for children to survive into adulthood, and parents will feel safer about having fewer children while investing more resources per child. Provide education and there will be opportunity for their children to get more lucrative jobs to support the family while potentially providing economic power to the nation as a whole in the form of a better skilled labor force.

It's better than dehumanizing them so you can rationalize trampling on people who are already suffering.

@ChrisP -Comment # 83 - a personal attack without explanation or substance. I stand by every fact I posted. Chris doesn't take the time to cite a single factual error in my post.

@Tbruce - #85 - Another factless post abd personal attack. Where's your evidence?

@ Krebiozen - #86 - Wallach has never claimed people in China lived to be 250 years old. In one of his books he mentions a Chinese govt report of Chinese herbalist Li Ching-Yuen living to the age of 256, but it's anecdotal and not used by Wallach in the plural or as an example of something that can be achieved by any human being.

From the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation - "Antioxidants may have a role in the slowing or PREVENTION of CF lung disease". They go on to talk about selenium and zinc supplementation as necessary for everyone with Cystic Fibrosis.
In PMC2696206 it is stated "Se supplementation studies in individuals with CF suggest benefit"
There is no record of any patient dying while Dr Wallach was chelating them.
Both the 250 year old chinese people and the chelating story can be found on shill webistes like Skeptic's Dictionary... and no where else

.Obviously Kreb doesn't know what he is talking about... or he is deliberately knowingly lying

.Obviously Kreb doesn’t know what he is talking about… or he is deliberately knowingly lying

It took you nearly three weeks to come up with this?

Mr. Polidoro is very slow at responding to anything. I asked him a question on another blog NVIC cherry picking data and he never responded.

He also has a habit of commenting on year old comments on YouTube. He is not exactly the fastest or brightest match in the box.

Michael Polidori,
You are seriously defending Wallach? He has made so many ludicrous claims I'm surprised anyone takes him seriously.

Wallach has never claimed people in China lived to be 250 years old. In one of his books he mentions a Chinese govt report of Chinese herbalist Li Ching-Yuen living to the age of 256, but it’s anecdotal and not used by Wallach in the plural or as an example of something that can be achieved by any human being.

Here are Wallach's own words from 'Dead Doctors Don't Lie' (PDF):

The oldest living person that has some documentation (I'm sure there is a certain amount of exaggeration in there), was a fellow, a Dr. Li, along the Tibetan Border, and this fellow, when he was 150 years old received a big certificate from the Imperial Chinese Government. He was born in 1677, and 150 years later was given a certificate by the Imperial Chinese Government for being 150. And then when he got to be 200 years, they sent him another, and then 50 years later they sent him another certificate, and supposedly he died at age 256. It's people of that nature - he's written up in the New York Times in 1933 when he died, and The London Times, and so this is fairly well documented. But he may have only been 200 years old. I don't know if he was 256, but this is the person who led James Hilton to write that story.

I withdraw my statement that Wallach claimed that people in China live for 250 years; it was merely 200 years.

From the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation – “Antioxidants may have a role in the slowing or PREVENTION of CF lung disease”. They go on to talk about selenium and zinc supplementation as necessary for everyone with Cystic Fibrosis.

Wallach has claimed that CF is not a genetic disease (link is to his own website) and that it can be cured using selenium, which is nonsense. Also, here's the full quote from the CFF (from their website):

Antioxidants may have a role in the slowing or prevention of CF lung disease. A healthy diet, including fruit and vegetables supplemented by fat-soluble vitamins, can boost the CF patient’s antioxidant protection.

There is no mention of selenium and zinc supplementation being necessary for everyone with cystic fibrosis. Fat soluble vitamins may be important in CF patients because they suffer from pancreatic insufficiency which can reduce absorption of fats and fat-soluble vitamins. Antioxidants may (or may not) reduce the number of lung infections CF patients get, but it won't change their genome.

There is no record of any patient dying while Dr Wallach was chelating them.

The National Council Against Health Fraud reports that:

In 1995 NCAHF received a report from a consumer in California who stated that Wallach was dispensing chelation therapy for coronary artery disease at a clinic in San Francisco. The caller was concerned because her father-in-law had died following Wallach's care. He had become very weak, but Wallach had poisoned him against returning to his regular physician, so he did not seek medical help. His wife, who is also a disciple of Wallach's ideas and health care, had the body cremated.

This wouldn't be the first death associated with chelation, which isn't proven to be useful for anything other than documented heavy metal poisoning.

Both the 250 year old chinese people and the chelating story can be found on shill webistes like Skeptic’s Dictionary… and no where else

That's not true.

.Obviously Kreb doesn’t know what he is talking about… or he is deliberately knowingly lying

I demand an immediate apology for this outrageous besmirching of my character.

I'm still waiting for a clear, meaningful distinction between plants that had genes deliberately inserted and plants that were genetically modified by natural mutation and selective breeding. Why all the hubbub? (Aside from the obvious naturalistic fallacy in play.)

Whining about species barriers comes across as borderline evolution denialism, since evolution means any "species" we label is a moving target. The collective group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring through breeding are the reality. The "species" label is just a human symbol we invented to talk about those collections of organisms. I say slaughter the sacred eidolon cow of Platonism; it makes the best hamburger.

Talking about vague risks of new genes misses the whole point why we bring up selectively bred plants, since random mutations can also be dangerous for the same reasons. If you complain about a type of risk, you can't just demonize one source of it, whitewash another, and expect us to accept the double standard. I don't buy into Disneyfied views of nature.

Talking about monocultures completely misses the topic in question. I wouldn't be surprised if genetic modification could be used to reverse monoculture trends if harnessed the right way. The technology and how people can use or abuse it are two different things. We're talking about whether or not there are health risks from eating GM crops, which is a scientific question. How we deal with monocultures seems an unrelated and largely political question to me.

Talking about how these plants can't sustain themselves demonstrates the ignorance of what humankind has been doing to these plants over the millennia. We've bred numerous crops that are completely dependent on human care. We did this long before we knew genes existed. I don't recall hearing anyone complain about food crops growing in the wild as invasive species... You know, a food crop being unable to survive without human care would actually be a good thing if you're an environmentalist who hates invasive weeds.

I am not so sure there is bad science regarding the safety of GMOs. I think there are studies with limitations but I think that one must be careful to brand any peer reviewed study as bad science. In reality, no single study can do everything.

We must also be careful about what we brand as bad science. If a study shows a potential negative health issue regarding GMOs this begs the question whether the researchers were out to show that GMOs are bad? Does it then follow that every study showing potential negative effects of GMOs is bad science or conversely that if a study shows no adverse health effects of GMOs that the researchers were out to prove them safe – also making it bad science? Science is directed by hypothesis which defines the study. This simply means that the results from a study must be contextualized within the parameters of the study.

Since the lead article clearly complains about bad science in showing potential negative impacts of GMOs – let me give you an example of science with limitations but where the authors over extend their findings to determine that GMOs are the same as thir conventional counterpart.

In the study by Cromwell et al. 2002 (Soybean meal from Roundup Ready or conventional soybeans in diets for growing-finishing swine) the authors conclude “This study clearly demonstrates that genetic modification of soybeans to make them tolerant to glyphosate herbicide does not affect their nutritional composition or the performance of swine when fed the soybean meal derived from the soybeans.” And what did they do to substantiate such a very conclusive statement? They basically fed pigs GM and non-GM soy, respectively, then checked the amount of back fat and size of longissimus muscle (loin) from which chops were cut, cooked and eaten by “an experienced sensory panel”. Oh and they also determined the composition of the soybean meal and crude composition of the loin (water, protein, fat and ash) to be able to conclude that GM soybeans does not affect “the performance of swine”.
In this study, performance is based on a sensory test and crude analysis of the loin. Was this bad science or just a study with limitations?

Just as one study does not conclusively show safety, one study cannot show detriment. What is important is that research not be branded as good science or bad – especially if it is peer reviewed. The more research the better.

A recent study Thongprakaisang et al. 2013 (Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors) concluded that “Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genistein which implied that the use of glyphosate-contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity”. Does this mean that glyphosate residue in GM herbicide tolerant soybeans will cause breast cancer? No! But it does mean that more research is needed to understand the potential link between what we eat and how it affects our bodies.

PS: What were the affiliations of the authors for the studies I referred to?
Cromwell et al. 2002: University of Kentucky and Monsanto Company - USA.
Thongprakaisang et al. 2013: Chulabhorn Graduate Institute and Chulabhorn Research Institute - Thailand

On the issue of herbicides and pecticides - like many of the household chemicals we use they are not healthy in the same way that detergent or brake fluid isn't healthy.
But we still use them because of the necessity or the choices we make. However, to think that these chemicals are "safe" is an error. The term safe refers to the correct and intented use in the context of specific paramenters.

Many studies have shown that glyphosate and formulations thereof are toxic – although little surprise there it is a herbicide – to mammals, Nile tilapia and sea urchin (Benachour et al., 2007; Clair et al., 2012; Daruich et al., 2001; Gasnier et al., 2009;Gui et al., 2012; Jiraungkoorskul et al., 2002; Koller et al., 2012; Malatesta et al., 2008b; Marc et al., 2002; Marc et al., 2004; Paganelli et al., 2010; Romano et al., 2012).

I have no problem with the use of pesticides and herbicides in a controlled and responsible manner – but it does amuse me to see how desperately the industry try to put a positive spin on something against all odds. A review sponsored by the industry not surprisingly concluded that “the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations” (Williams et al., 2012). They did concede that where glyphosate toxicity has been observed, it is the result of “surfactants present in the formulations and not the direct result of glyphosate exposure”. Why?” Because we say so!

Does this mean that we must stop using glyphosate? No! But it does mean we should start to think about sustainability, not from a fanatic "green" perspective but thinking about how much chemical pollution our ecosystem (including ourselves) can actually handle. One company rep admitted at a meeting a few years ago that in some areas farmers were spraying up to three times the concentration of glyphosate, than was recommended, because of the development of resistance in weeds.

In science we are taught that in an enclosed reactive system, one or more of the components will become limiting over time. In a sense the earth also represents an enclosed system and by the time one or more components becomes limiting it will be too late to do anything about it.

I am not so sure there is bad science regarding the safety of GMOs. I think there are studies with limitations but I think that one must be careful to brand any peer reviewed study as bad science.

So, that would be a long-winded failure right out of the gate?

In science we are taught that in an enclosed reactive system, one or more of the components will become limiting over time.

Ah, yes.

(Benachour et al., 2007; Clair et al., 2012; Daruich et al., 2001; Gasnier et al., 2009;Gui et al., 2012; Jiraungkoorskul et al., 2002; Koller et al., 2012; Malatesta et al., 2008b; Marc et al., 2002; Marc et al., 2004; Paganelli et al., 2010; Romano et al., 2012).

Is that copypasta I smell cooking?

Narad resorts to insults because he has no other defence. Yawn!

Dave, it's not the results that determines if it's bad science, it's bad methodology. You could have cited those studies without rehearsing your prejudices and throwing up straw men.

David Smith,

What is important is that research not be branded as good science or bad – especially if it is peer reviewed.

There are objective standards that can be used to assess the quality of studies, as used to decide which studies are included in systematic reviews and metaanalyses, for example here. I think you will find that Orac is quite justified in labeling the studies he refers to as bad science, and that he explains why in some detail.

@Chris AGAIN doesn't use any evidence & his post is a baseless and/or irrelevant personal attack

@kreb - kreb demanding an apology... when his entire post supported exactly what I said when I called him ignorant OR a knowing liar
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation states – “Antioxidants may have a role in the slowing or PREVENTION of CF lung disease”.
How do anti-oxidants PREVENT what kreb & CFF claim is a genetic disease?
The benefit of selenium is admitted by CFF and in the study I quoted... but neither fully explain the degree of benefit
Then kreb again brings up the 256 year old ONE chinese person reported by the Chinese govt, kreb pretends Wallach has extrapolated that to more than one case when kreb's quote shows Wallach discounts the record as exagerated. Wallach NEVER states that 200 or 256 year old Chinese people are a regular occurrence nor does he cite ANY OTHER CHINESE PERSON LIVING TO ANY AGE APPROACHING WHAT WAS REPORTED IN CHINESE RECORDS
Stop twisting the truth & lyinglies about Dr Wallach, kreb... repetition doesn't make these things believable or fact-based... or are you a student of Nazi propaganda techmiques?
Then kreb quotes the NCAHF... really kreb? The Barrett/Baratz run organization associated with QuackWatch?
Barrett, the disgraced "doctor" & infamous king of the QuackPots?... please, kreb, stop embarrassing yourself.
Again, instead of using eidence against Dr Wallach you use an admitted THIRD-HAND description of a letter from an unamed source claiming to be a relative of someone who received chelation from Dr Wallach then subsequently died... really? this is the best you can do? This is the extent of your evidence against Dr Joel Wallach?
You besmirch yourself again, forcing me to pseudo-besmirch you... again!

Wow, just wow.

Mr. Polidoro would not know what real evidence is if fell into a pit of papers. Especially since I actually posted a bunch, and then asked him a question. Only he ran away instead.

The only pseudo-science involved in GMOs and their regulation is the phrase "substantially equivalent" which the FDA uses to avoid regulating GMO.
Through this industry-concocted phrase FDA claims GMO are essentially the same as conventional or organic food crops.
Of course this is nonsense as "pest-resistant" GMO corn (one example of MANY) has 2 insecticides in every part of the plant which will kill some insects that normally feed on corn, but chemical insecticides STILL have to be used to kill a wider range of corn pests..
"Round-up Ready" corn is regularly sprayed with herbicide, contaminating every part fo the crop, inside and out, with substances that have never been part of our diets, but are known to kill most plant life.
Changing the DNA of any plant or animal will cause inknown changes to the food. This cannot be avoided. When a crop is "instructed" by the random insertion of a multi-gene package to produce 2 types of insecticide it has to contruct those insecticides from existing nutrient bases in the soil. This will detract from the nutritional content as no changes were made to compensate for this added burden of poison-protein synthesis.
Additional changes occur in the nutritional levels (some are documented), but while companies may be aware of the changes they do not have to report them to the FDA or USDA as all gene altered crops are pre-approved for market based on the nonsensical phrase "substantially equivalent".
Biotech companies can engage the FDA in voluntary consultations... but they are VOLUNTARY.
Are the foods affecting us? It's hard enough to determine what foods may be making us ill... but if one of the potential causes is hidden so that no one knows if you are eating GMO because no labeling is required then it is IMPOSSIBLE to even guess that GMO may be involved in any trends, poisonings, nutritional deficiencies or immune problems
That pharase "substantially equivalent" is so blatant a lie I am surprised, to this day, that it is being used.
Conventional corn can be eaten by insects that normally feed on corn. GMO corn will kill some of those same insects... that is not substantially equivalent, from a bug's-eye view.
When we change the DNA of our food with a random insertion of a package of genes (viral bacterial animal and/or human) which causes the plant to divert resources to the creation of toxic proteins we diminish the corn's nutritional value, increase the growing time to mature harvest and cause changes to the corn that no one can predict & no one is looking for.
Arpad Pusztai's potatoes reveal 2 things.
1, causing potatoes to produce lectin resulted in some rats, being fed the potatoes, to sicken & die, This was alarming and unexpected... UNEXPECTED!!!
2, the reaction of British biotech companies and the British govt was to attack Pusztai's credibility and abilities as a researcher, even though he is a world renowned and respected geneticist.
This is typical corporate tactics & corporate-influenced govt tactics, to ignore safety and health issues in favor of corporate profits... in this case protecting the technology from bad press (the truth) so that ownership of our entire food supply by corporations can proceed... with farmers unable to save seed, paying more for GMO seed and consumers deprived of choice (this includes the destruction of the organic food industry by widespread contamination of the USA food crop. Organic corn and soy are the first 2 victims on USA and Canadian farms.
Anyone defending the current horrendous way in which we ignore safety, ignore concerns about nutrition, ignore widespread contamination of conventional & organic crops and ignore the overwhelming majority of informed Americans and Canadians who want GMO labeled... anyone who sides with this betrayal of trust and hijacking of our food supply is ignorant of the facts surrounding this misapplication of biotechnology and/or is working directly or indirectly for the industry.
There are unfortunately many individuals who will sell their soul for a narcissistic short term gain.
Slong with Pusztai's persecution we can also see industry and regulators cooperating to harass, injure and/or silence others...
Eric Topol of the Cleveland Clinic for his work exposing Merck killing people with Vioxx
FDA Associate Director of Drug Safety David Graham forced to seek whistleblower protection when he joined Topol & Nissen & 6 other researchers exposing Vioxx deaths & injuries
Dr Andrew Wakefield persecuted for suggesting in 1998 that MMR vaccine may need some safety studies, and blamed to this day for any instance of MMR uptake drops or flare ups of measles... even in vaccinated populations, Dr Wakefield is still somehow blamed.
GMO crops are not needed and will make food more expensive leading to more people starving while biotech corporations get wealthy in the short term.
Underutilizing much of our cropland in the world we still produce enough to feed 3 billion more people than we have. We must convert to sustainable farming practices because the alternative is, well how should I put this... unsustainable!

Dr Andrew Wakefield persecuted for suggesting in 1998 that MMR vaccine may need some safety studies, and blamed to this day for any instance of MMR uptake drops or flare ups of measles… even in vaccinated populations, Dr Wakefield is still somehow blamed.

Rest assured that the effort to tie it up with a bow is much appreciated, no matter how sloppy the execution.

Michael, you have no idea what substantial equivalence means.

Whenever you grow a crop, the make up of the product will differ slightly due to differences in the soil, the amount of rain, how much insect attack there was, the temperature, whether there had been a frost and if so when, what cultivar was grown and so on. Every lettuce you eat has a slightly different make up to every other lettuce.

The concept of substantial equvalence corrects for these variations in safety assessments. Something can be a bit different in make up, but not actually be harmful or less nutritious. The data has to establish that the GM product has the same same concentrations of nutrients that would normally be found within the range of conventional products.

It is really quite a sensible idea. Only if the product has something outside the range of what people already safely eat, should a concern be raised.

As for your other arguments: Arpad Pusztai showed that raw potatoes were harmful to rats. His data had more differences between raw and cooked potatoes than between cooked potatoes and GM potatoes.

And Merck, they have nothing to do with GM crops.

Wakefield was shown to have doctored his results and lied to his collaborators.

I could go on, but suggest it better if you were first to construct a coherent argument we could consider, rather than a rash of conspiracy theories.

Michael Polidori,

@kreb – kreb demanding an apology… when his entire post supported exactly what I said when I called him ignorant OR a knowing liar
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation states – “Antioxidants may have a role in the slowing or PREVENTION of CF lung disease”.
How do anti-oxidants PREVENT what kreb & CFF claim is a genetic disease?

You are seriously claiming that this statement by the CFF supports Wallach's claims that selenium supplements cure cystic fibrosis? They wrote, following that statement:

A healthy diet, including fruit and vegetables supplemented by fat-soluble vitamins, can boost the CF patient’s antioxidant protection.

CF patients have trouble absorbing fat-soluble vitamins, not selenium. There is a big difference between cystic fibrosis and cystic fibrosis lung disease.

Cystic fibrosis is "an autosomal recessive genetic disorder that affects most critically the lungs, and also the pancreas, liver, and intestine. It is characterized by abnormal transport of chloride and sodium across an epithelium, leading to thick, viscous secretions." (From Wikipedia). I used to help diagnose CF by doing sweat tests, which show abnormally high sodium in sweat, which no amount of selenium will cure.

Cystic fibrosis lung disease is a consequence of cystic fibrosis, characterized by repeated infection and inflammation of the lungs. It is this progressive process that antioxidants may be able to slow or perhaps even prevent, not CF itself.

Selenium is not an antioxidant, though it is a component of some antioxidant enzymes.

Wallach clearly states that cystic fibrosis is not a genetic disease and that selenium can cure it. From his own website (I linked to it in one of my comments above):

Dr. Joel Wallach spent 41 years in nutritional and biomedical research as both a veterinarian and a human physician. He was the first person to recognize that cystic fibrosis is not genetic.

This is utter BS. There is no doubt at all that CF is a genetic disorder.

The benefit of selenium is admitted by CFF and in the study I quoted… but neither fully explain the degree of benefit

Even on the CFF's page on antioxidant therapies for CF there is no mention at all of selenium, nor on their page on vitamins and minerals, and on a page about a workshop on antioxidants and CF, which is the "study" you quoted, selenium is mentioned as possibly increasing glutathione levels which might help CF patients. That is a long, long way from curing CF as Wallach claims to be able to do.

Then kreb again brings up the 256 year old ONE chinese person reported by the Chinese govt, kreb pretends Wallach has extrapolated that to more than one case when kreb’s quote shows Wallach discounts the record as exagerated. Wallach NEVER states that 200 or 256 year old Chinese people are a regular occurrence nor does he cite ANY OTHER CHINESE PERSON LIVING TO ANY AGE APPROACHING WHAT WAS REPORTED IN CHINESE RECORDS

I never suggested he did. I wrote, "People in China who live for 250 years?" and later amended that to 200 years. Wallach claims there is a documented case of a person in China who lived to 200 years old. I quoted and linked to his own words doing just that. How can you possibly deny this?

Stop twisting the truth & lyinglies about Dr Wallach, kreb… repetition doesn’t make these things believable or fact-based… or are you a student of Nazi propaganda techmiques?

How is quoting a person's own words from their own publications and website, "twisting the truth and lying"? I'll ignore the Godwin, for now.

Then kreb quotes the NCAHF… really kreb? The Barrett/Baratz run organization associated with QuackWatch?
Barrett, the disgraced “doctor” & infamous king of the QuackPots?… please, kreb, stop embarrassing yourself.

I see you have swallowed the hateful lies and propaganda about Dr. Barrett. How is he disgraced exactly? Can you point to a single piece of inaccurate information on any of Barrett's websites?

Again, instead of using eidence against Dr Wallach you use an admitted THIRD-HAND description of a letter from an unamed source claiming to be a relative of someone who received chelation from Dr Wallach then subsequently died… really? this is the best you can do? This is the extent of your evidence against Dr Joel Wallach?

You wrote:

There is no record of any patient dying while Dr Wallach was chelating them.

I proved you wrong by linking to The National Council Against Health Fraud's record of a patient who died after being chelated by Dr. Wallach. It's not third hand, and The National Council Against Health Fraud are a reliable organization.

You besmirch yourself again, forcing me to pseudo-besmirch you… again!

People here can read what you wrote, what I wrote, and they can go to Wallach's words that I linked to. It is very clear that everything I wrote is accurate, and that it is you who is attempting, extremely ineptly, to twist the truth here.

Changing the DNA of any plant or animal will cause inknown changes to the food. This cannot be avoided. When a crop is “instructed” by the random insertion of a multi-gene package to produce 2 types of insecticide it has to contruct those insecticides from existing nutrient bases in the soil. This will detract from the nutritional content as no changes were made to compensate for this added burden of poison-protein synthesis.

Your rhetoric against artificial variation is equally applicable to natural variation and from what I can tell, would be pro-monoculture, if it were applied consistently.

But you aren't consistent. You demonize the risks of GM crops while deliberately ignoring the exact same risks when they're a product of natural variation. And natural variations happen all the time without human intervention. It doesn't help your case that the division between natural and artificial is pretty much arbitrary and stinks of outdated, ideological notions of genetic purity.

We, on the other hand, accept and expect some level of variation in our crops. We want humanity to be both aware of and responsible about all crop variation to the extent we can be.

Oh, and yes, everything is a trade-off. A gene that wards the crop against pests can provide a net increase in nutritional value if it prevents pests from eating the plant and lowering the nutritional value by a greater amount. It's all about finding better cost/benefit ratios, and those can vary depending on the local environment.

@michael polidori

Thank you for that astounding display of complete ignorance and stupidity as well as all your conspiracy-theory mongering. You are good for a few laughs at your utter ignorance and a prime example of D-K in action, especially since the regulars have posted evidence and you have not.

Please post more, we need a few more laughs at your ignorance. I certainly could use a few chuckles at your expense.

I don't have much to add to the conversation this evening, but I just HAD to comment. I am so glad to have found this blog and read through the comments.

Sigh. It's like "coming home."

Watch this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A

An hour and twenty freakin' minuets of Gary Null?

I'll pass.