Shocking findings in new GMO study

Pacoa

http://naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

bob charles

nothing new in that biased study, check who provided the funding and also go to the bottom of the page and look at the huge writing, not normal in a scientific report is it.

JohnBoy

That is an article about the study though, not the actual study.

The study abstract is here: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm



Not sure how a three year old study counts as new though...

Received 2009-7-23
Accepted 2009-11-17
Published 2009-12-10

minimeme900

It's unclear who provided the funding but I for one would prefer a study done by independent academics and doctors and not paid for however discreetly by a multinational corporation bent on controlling world agriculture, that’s why Bob is right to state “check who provided the funding” for research on both sides of this issue
But these independent studies will never be able to compete against the xx’s of millions of dollars spent on PR and research to prove whats necessary for a multi-billion dollar industry to continue unrestricted.

Here is a documentary on mon santo thats a bit unnerving
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0uls507hvM

reilig

minimeme900 wrote: »

It's unclear who provided the funding but I for one would prefer a study done by independent academics and doctors and not paid for however discreetly by a multinational corporation bent on controlling world agriculture, that’s why Bob is right to state “check who provided the funding” for research on both sides of this issue
But these independent studies will never be able to compete against the xx’s of millions of dollars spent on PR and research to prove whats necessary for a multi-billion dollar industry to continue unrestricted.

Here is a documentary on mon santo thats a bit unnerving
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0uls507hvM

Not being cynical here, but do we know who funded the documentary?
Many documentaries which display multinational corporations in poor light are usually found to be funded by the main competition who want a cut of the sales.

bob charles

Lots of scientists have to get results so they can get more funding to stay in a job, so they have to target there results so as to attract funding from vested interests.

Having watched that documentary allot of it is wishy washy and drawing conclusions that cant just be drawn straight. Im all for technology aslong as there is proper studies done both for and against. Im surprised I havnt heard the organic PR machine on shouting about frankenstien foods

minimeme900

From the credits at the end it looks like it’s by Arte –France (a European cultural tv channel) and the National Film Board of Canada and directed by an investigative journalist.
Its good to be questioning\cynical. If only everyone was as cynical about media that supports the other side!

So now that the bonifides, unbiased and non-profit nature of the producers has been established:
Will you watch the documentary and accept it contents?

bob charles

minimeme900 wrote: »

From the credits at the end it looks like it’s by Arte –France (a European cultural tv channel) and the National Film Board of Canada and directed by an investigative journalist.
Its good to be questioning\cynical. If only everyone was as cynical about media that supports the other side!

So now that the bonifides, unbiased and non-profit nature of the producers has been established:
Will you watch the documentary and accept it contents?

I watched it and allot of it is nonsense, and allot of it draws conclusions that cant be drawn. One such example doing the rounds is that farmers in India have been driven to suicide by the introduction of GM cotton.
In reality the occurrence of farmer suicides in rural India is a complex social phenomenon that long predates the introduction of GM. Indeed,the new GM insect-resistant cotton has boosted yields and helped farmers to reduce their use of insecticide sprays.


Another myth about the farmers having to now buy new Corn each season. This has being going on ages as nearly every maize variety is a hybrid and will only germinate once so new seed is bought each season. Hybrids are chosen by these farmers as their yields are way above single varieties

brian_t

minimeme900 wrote: »

From the credits at the end it looks like it’s by Arte –France (a European cultural tv channel) and the National Film Board of Canada

So now that the bonifides, unbiased and non-profit nature of the producers has been established:

So it's a French/Canadian film about a US company.

I'm not sure that the bonifides, unbiased and non-profit nature of the producers has been established.

pakalasa

"Independent studies" should be just that - Independent. Worthless otherwise. 'Like asking the Barber if you need a haircut' and all that.

flatout11

surprised that study survived the review process in its current form given the design lack of replication and use of a spiecies of rat prone to devoloping tumors - what are we meant to interperate from this?

minimeme900

flatout11 wrote: »

surprised that study survived the review process in its current form given the design lack of replication and use of a spiecies of rat prone to devoloping tumors - what are we meant to interperate from this?

If you use the same rats and the gmo group develop more cancer than the non gmo then where’s the problem?

minimeme900

bob charles wrote: »

I watched it and allot of it is nonsense, and allot of it draws conclusions that cant be drawn. One such example doing the rounds is that farmers in India have been driven to suicide by the introduction of GM cotton.

Allot of it is not nonsense, uses evidence from farmers like ourselves who have experience and scientists but leaves it up to the viewer to decide.

For me its an interesting take on a big company that takes no prisoners including farmers.
Interesting how they hid\falsified research, got people sacked from their jobs who questioned their findings and how they got around and were in bed with the FDA in the U.S

Yeah we cant really comment on suicides in India but it was enough that the farmers on the ground there were rejecting GMOs wholesale due to increased costs, being locked into one company for their seeds and no noticible increase in return for going the gmo route.

For me the point about buying new seeds each season was that if a farmer wants to use the seed from a gmo crop to plant next years harvest then he will have to pay the bio company a royalty as it is them who owns the future seeds.

To me that seems to be why they have sued farmers, its such a controversial and profitable business and is rejected by poor third world farmers who are used to keeping their seeds for planting next year and thats apart from the unknown consequences of experimenting on the population and ecosystem for profit

But sure you get the research results you pay for and I think that the GMO companies can afford more and better PR consultants, scientists, regulators and politicans

Ziphius

minimeme900 wrote: »

If you use the same rats and the gmo group develop more cancer than the non gmo then where’s the problem?

Sample size. If the flat cancer rate is say 50% you'd expect 5 rats in ten to develop tumors.

So if in a trial with 10 rates and 70% develop tumors that's only 2 more than normal. Hardly conclusive evidence.

People don't seem to keen to mention that many of the rats in this study were also fed Round up weed killer in addition to GM maize.

Ziphius

minimeme900 wrote: »

Yeah we cant really comment on suicides in India but it was enough that the farmers on the ground there were rejecting GMOs wholesale due to increased costs, being locked into one company for their seeds and no noticible increase in return for going the gmo route.

For me the point about buying new seeds each season was that if a farmer wants to use the seed from a gmo crop to plant next years harvest then he will have to pay the bio company a royalty as it is them who owns the future seeds.

Sure, but this is an argument against big business rather than GMOs. Remember much of the research (the majority I imagine). Is carried out in universities and public research institutes such as Teagasc. We pay for it with our taxes and we own. There is a lot of potential benefit that needs to be researched.