Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Corn Grow Horrifying Tumors, new study.

planetX · 24-09-2012 07:29PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

And it does make a difference to you. You've been evolved to eat A, not "perfectly" evolved but still pretty well adapted to it. You haven't been evolved to eat A`, A that is a little changed as occurs sometimes in nature. Now it's unlikely to do you much harm, but it won't be as good as eating the original A. Eventually humans would evolve to be better able to eat and make use of A'. However GM foods could modify A so fast, it would be hugely different, let's call it "A#. Now humans could be partly evolved to deal with that, but it just won't "fit" very well, it won't be an exact match. This is hardly some revolutionary line of argument, it's basic common sense: change an environment (including food available) from what an organism has evolved for and it won't do so well, like a fish out of water.

We haven't evolved biologically to eat any cultivated grains...

humbert · 24-09-2012 07:34PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

An interesting comparison of the blatant poisoning of people by the Nazi's a generation ago to the discrete mass poisoning of society today by corrupt governments and multinationals.

Godwinned, and in spectacular style.

SuperInfinity · 24-09-2012 07:35PM

planetX wrote: »

We haven't evolved biologically to eat any cultivated grains...

Exactly. Grains are not ideal foods for humans and are suspected as being behind many health problems. I don't eat them anymore or very rarely do.

And it's this "well why not eat them, shur they don't seem to do much harm, I feel fine after them and ate them for 40 years" attitude that is extremely frightening when it comes to GM foods. Grains are definitely sub-optimal for humans, and yet there are huge industries and lobbies that manage to get out studies about how great some of them are for your heart etc.

Processed food is changing the food even more from what you're evolved to eat. That's why highly processed and refined foods are progressively worse for you the more they are changed from their original state.

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 07:35PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Funny, I seem to remember tobacco companies saying the same things for decades, denying that their product caused lung cancer.

The science of epidemiology was essentially invented so that scientists could demonstrate the causal link between tobacco use and cancer. Following the same principles, they've failed to find a similar link between GM and various negative outcomes. This doesn't mean there are no such links to be found (maybe we haven't looked at the right outcomes), but anyone who says they know GM is harmful to consumers doesn't understand what "knowing" actually is.

Love this:

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Evolution is evidence that GM foods are bad for you. There is something like a 1/100,000 chance for a mutation to be good for an organism, a corollary to that is surely that there is something like a 1/100,000 chance for a mutation of a food to be good for the organism consuming it (agree? disagree?). Changing intrinsic parts of food in ways you know nothing about and expecting them to turn out just the same health-wise is an evolutionary absurdity.

I don't think you understand probability or evolution. Evolution (or at least variation by mutation) is random. Human actions are not (or at least they're less random). It's the difference between getting a royal flush from a shuffled 52 card deck (something like 0.003% chance) versus going through the deck and picking some or all of the cards we want (100% chance). I'm not saying we have 100% confidence in the the outcome when it comes to GM in terms of function and safety, but it's 3-4 orders of magnitude more predictable than variation by mutation, and it's tested which is more than we can say for mutation.

humbert · 24-09-2012 07:38PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Exactly. Grains are not ideal foods for humans and are suspected as being behind many health problems. I don't eat them anymore or very rarely do.

And it's this "well why not eat them, shur they don't seem to do much harm, I feel fine after them and ate them for 40 years" attitude that is extremely frightening when it comes to GM foods. Grains are definitely sub-optimal for humans, and yet there are huge industries and lobbies that manage to get out studies about how great some of them are for your heart etc.

Nothing I've read about them being less than optimal has been in contradiction to what I've read about them being good for your heart.

SuperInfinity · 24-09-2012 07:41PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't think you understand probability or evolution.

Shut up. I understand them far better than you. I wasn't claiming any of what you said following that. Please don't start out anything like that again. Really, it's extremely annoying. DO NOT start out saying: "I don't think you understand" again to anyone. Don't talk to me ever again about not understanding anything. Make your point, and refrain from talking about what others allegedly know and do not know. I don't say things like that.

If you want to GM an organism, you affect lots of things about it. It's not just that one specific characteristic, they're not as precise as that. Hence they have a ton of extra artefacts that go into the organism that all have a 1/100,000 chance of being good for the organism and I claim hence for the organism that consumes them.

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 07:47PM

planetX wrote: »

We haven't evolved biologically to eat any cultivated grains...

That's a concept that's been thrown around a lot by fans of the paleo diet. The basic argument goes that we couldn't have had time in the 10,000 years since grains came into our diet to evolve in response. But we evolved to deal with cow and goats milk in the same time period, and it's starting to look like grains have been in our diets for much longer than that anyway. It's a plausible idea, and one I liked when I first heard of it, but it's not actually supported by evidence.

humbert · 24-09-2012 07:48PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Shut up. I understand them far better than you. I wasn't claiming any of what you said following that. Please don't start out anything like that again. Really, it's extremely annoying. DO NOT start out saying: "I don't think you understand" again to anyone. Don't talk to me ever again about not understanding anything. Make your point, and refrain from talking about what others allegedly know and do not know. I don't say things like that.

You can tell him to shut up but he can't opine that you don't understand probability or evolution?

SuperInfinity · 24-09-2012 07:51PM

humbert wrote: »

You can tell him to shut up but he can't opine that you don't understand probability or evolution?

Both are impolite, I think the former is less so. It's not remarking on anything about him.

Shryke · 24-09-2012 07:56PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

planetX wrote: »

We haven't evolved biologically to eat any cultivated grains...

That's a concept that's been thrown around a lot by fans of the paleo diet. The basic argument goes that we couldn't have had time in the 10,000 years since grains came into our diet to evolve in response. But we evolved to deal with cow and goats milk in the same time period, and it's starting to look like grains have been in our diets for much longer than that anyway. It's a plausible idea, and one I liked when I first heard of it, but it's not actually supported by evidence.

It's well known that many people have intolerance to grain, (gluten), and in extreme cases that leads to celiacs disease, which is a common condition in Ireland. We aren't fully adapted to cows milk either, and plenty of people have an intolerance for it or are completely lactose intolerant.
There are varying degrees of intolerance which sees a lot of people carrying on without realising that they're being effected. Symptoms would be mild, but we're certainly not near fully adapted.

Ziphius · 24-09-2012 08:00PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It is not "where food comes from", we have co-evolved with food for millions of years and it would be perfect if it were left alone. Any artificial selection simply damages it by making it less suitable for how we were evolved. If you don't believe that then you don't believe in evolution and have zero understanding of it.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Shut up. I understand them far better than you. I wasn't claiming any of what you said following that. Please don't start out anything like that again. Really, it's extremely annoying. DO NOT start out saying: "I don't think you understand" again to anyone. Don't talk to me ever again about not understanding anything. Make your point, and refrain from talking about what others allegedly know and do not know. I don't say things like that.

:rolleyes:

SuperInfinity · 24-09-2012 08:05PM

Ziphius wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I was encouraging the person looking at it to think more about that specific point, not just coming in and saying it about their whole state of knowledge and understanding. I also said "if" rather than "you are". But granted you make a valid point.

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 08:08PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Shut up.

No. Now what?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I understand them far better than you.

I don't think that you do and it's important that you try to fix that if you're going to make these sorts of arguments.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I wasn't claiming any of what you said following that.

You suggested that a mutation has only a small chance of being beneficial (true), and that the chance of a mutation to a food being beneficial to the consumer is also small (true). However you then suggest that intentionally introducing a genetic change to a food must therefore have a similar low probability of benefit (and thus an equally high risk of detriment). This is not true, because it supposes that scientists make genetic modifications to food in a manner that is analagous to mutation. Mutation is random and acts primarily by very small changes on a "sub-gene" level. It's normally not detected until it causes harm. Genetic modification involves introduction of fully functioning genes, with known characteristics, followed by testing to determine effect. If you understood evolution, or GM, you'd understand this difference, but your argument nr. 3 suggests you don't. Similarly, if you understood probability, you'd understand how limiting parameters in a chaotic system (such as selecting a full, characterized gene or a bunch of cards of a single suit) impacts on the probabilities of outcomes.

Again, not saying there's no need for caution, but you're mischaracterising GM when you suggest it is analogous to undirected evolution.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Please don't start out anything like that again. Really, it's extremely annoying. DO NOT start out saying: "I don't think you understand" again to anyone.

But you don't understand. I'm not trying to have a go at you, I'm trying to tell you that your argument is based on a lack of understanding of the subject.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Don't talk to me ever again about not understanding anything. Make your point, and refrain from talking about what others allegedly know and do not know. I don't say things like that.

But you do tell people to shut up... I'd rather you point out a mistake in my argument.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

If you want to GM an organism, you affect lots of things about it. It's not just that one specific characteristic, they're not as precise as that.

Never said it was. Said it wasn't as random as mutation.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Hence they have a ton of extra artefacts that go into the organism that all have a 1/100,000 chance of being good for the organism and I claim hence for the organism that consumes them.

What "artifacts"? I'm not familiar with that word in respect to GM. Give me an example of what you mean.

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 08:15PM

Shryke wrote: »

It's well known that many people have intolerance to grain, (gluten), and in extreme cases that leads to celiacs disease, which is a common condition in Ireland. We aren't fully adapted to cows milk either, and plenty of people have an intolerance for it or are completely lactose intolerant.

Yes, but those are arguments for our evolution in response to these foods. Some people carry human genes for assimilating gluten and lactose and others don't- that's the case for all genes.

Shryke wrote: »

There are varying degrees of intolerance which sees a lot of people carrying on without realising that they're being effected. Symptoms would be mild, but we're certainly not near fully adapted.

And if that's so, then it's great to diagnose it and help people make decisions about their diets, but lets not pretend humans have not evolved to have grains and milk in their diets. They have, but not every individual has inherited the genes for them. The big question is whether those genes are increasing in frequency- my guess would be that they are, but I don't if anyone has assessed the frequencies to check.

SuperInfinity · 24-09-2012 08:23PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What "artifacts"? I'm not familiar with that word in respect to GM. Give me an example of what you mean.

It's not a technical term in the literature. It's enough to say that a large amount of things can go wrong when you try to genetically modify organisms.

Reprogramming human fibroblasts to become induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) has opened another path to the derivation of stem cell lines with clinical and research potential. Unfortunately, these lines are not safe for human clinical use because, although useful in the short term, their genetic modifications may bear artifacts. Currently, derivation of iPS cells requires genetic modification using DNA transduction to introduce programming genes, causing permanent genetic modifications that can perturb cell fate in unpredictable ways.

http://techtransfer.universityofcalifornia.edu/NCD/21892.html

This idea of going in, changing the colour, and everything else works the same does not work. Like how the "flavr savr" tomatoes tasted really bad, even though what they were trying to do was make them last longer.

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 08:24PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

An interesting comparison of the blatant poisoning of people by the Nazi's a generation ago to the discrete mass poisoning of society today by corrupt governments and multinationals.

Zyklon B is a very effective chemical for killing humans. The trick is getting the victims to inhale it. Since most people won't voluntarily inhale Zyklon B gas, you have to use some means of force to march them into chambers where the gas is released. Hence the use of guns in the hands of governments, the rise of the SS (known as "TSA" in modern America), and the rounding up of innocent citizens to be gassed to death during the Nazi regime. "Nazi," by the way, is shorthand for "national socialist party.

The Nazi approach to killing people was very effective in 1944, but it wouldn't fly today in the age of instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook and other social media. It's hard to keep a concentration camp a secret these days, especially if millions of people are being processed through them.

If the Nazis had cell phone cameras in 1944, somebody would have snapped some photos, uploaded them to "NaziTube.com" and the whole cover would have been blown. (Or YouTube would have censored the videos and protected the Nazis from being outed, because YouTube routinely censors videos that expose bad government.)

The Nazi approach to killing people was very effective in 1944, but it wouldn't fly today in the age of instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook and other social media. It's hard to keep a concentration camp a secret these days, especially if millions of people are being processed through them. If the Nazis had cell phone cameras in 1944, somebody would have snapped some photos, uploaded them to "NaziTube.com" and the whole cover would have been blown. (Or YouTube would have censored the videos and protected the Nazis from being outed, because YouTube routinely censors videos that expose bad government.)

Fast forward six decades or so, and you've got our modern world. All the same types of psychopathic killers still run the world's most powerful governments and corporations, but they've figured out that in order to kill people, they've got to do it a little more covertly.

Specifically, there needed to be a way to get people to voluntarily kill themselves.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037290_Zyklon_B_GMO_food_weapons.html

Yes. That's what the big corporations want. To kill their consumers.

1. Identify a need to improve crop yields
2. POISON ALL HUMANS
3. ???
4. Profit

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 08:39PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It's not a technical term in the literature. It's enough to say that a large amount of things can go wrong when you try to genetically modify organisms.

I agree- it's a very complex system that they're working with. But it's not a random change, so it's really nothing like evolution.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Reprogramming human fibroblasts to become induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) has opened another path to the derivation of stem cell lines with clinical and research potential. Unfortunately, these lines are not safe for human clinical use because, although useful in the short term, their genetic modifications may bear artifacts. Currently, derivation of iPS cells requires genetic modification using DNA transduction to introduce programming genes, causing permanent genetic modifications that can perturb cell fate in unpredictable ways.

http://techtransfer.universityofcalifornia.edu/NCD/21892.html

Yes, but again we're talking about a controlled process with chaotic elements subject to observation for specified outcomes, not a totally random phenomenon without a goal. Big difference.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

This idea of going in, changing the colour, and everything else works the same does not work.

You're talking about pleiotropy. Single genes affect multiple traits. That doesn't mean scientists can't modify single traits at all, there are plenty of ways to compensate or target modifications. It's not a simple task, but it's also not hopeless.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Like how the "flavr savr" tomatoes tasted really bad, even though what they were trying to do was make them last longer.

If by "really bad" you mean "bland like damp rice cakes", sure. Not exactly a health risk though. Also, Flavr Savrs didn't disappear because of the taste, they fixed that later on. They disappeared because the guys who bred them didn't know how to run a fruit distribution business.

shedweller · 24-09-2012 08:40PM

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai

Arpad Pusztai
The history of events and the quotes below are adapted from Andy Rowell's book, Don't Worry, It's Safe to Eat, Earthscan, 2003, ISBN 1853839329.
On 10 August 1998 the GM debate changed forever with the broadcast of a programme on British TV about GM food safety featuring a brief but revealing interview with Dr Arpad Pusztai about his research into GM food safety. Dr Pusztai told of his findings on the ill effects of GM potatoes on laboratory rats. He was subsequently gagged and suspended by his institute, the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland, his research team was disbanded, and his research data was confiscated. He was subjected to a campaign of vilification and misrepresentation by several pro-GM scientific bodies and pro-GM lobbyists, in an attempt to discredit him and his research.
The story began three years earlier. That's when the UK government's Scottish Office commissioned a three-year multi-centre research programme into the safety of GM food under the coordination of Dr Arpad Pusztai. At that time there was not a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal on the safety of GM food.
Dr Pusztai, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, was an eminent scientist. He was the world's leading expert on the plant proteins known as lectins. He had published three books and over 270 scientific studies.
He and his team fought off competition from 28 other research organisations from across Europe to be awarded the GBP1.6 million contract by the Scottish Office. The project methodology was also reviewed and passed by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) - the UK government's main funding body for the biological sciences.
The research involved feeding GM potatoes to rats and monitoring physiological changes. By late 1997 preliminary results from the rat-feeding experiments were showing totally unexpected and worrying changes in the size and weight of the rat's body organs. Liver and heart sizes were getting smaller, and so was the brain. There were also indications that the rats' immune systems were weakening.
Dr Pusztai was interviewed for a programme about GM food being made by Granada TV's World in Action. The filming took place in late June 1998 with the agreement of the director of the Rowett Institute, Professor Philip James, and in the presence of the Rowett Institute's press officer. The World in Action interview was broadcast on the evening of Monday 10 August 1998.
Later that evening Professor James congratulated Dr Pusztai on his TV appearance, commenting on "how well Arpad had handled the questions". The next day a further press release from the Rowett noted that 'a range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr Pusztai's concerns'. However, reportedly following two calls to the Rowett from the Prime Minister's Office, the Government, the Royal Society and the Rowett launched a vitriolic campaign to sack, silence and ridicule Dr Pusztai.
He was accused of unprofessional conduct because his work had not been peer-reviewed. However, his research subsequently passed peer-review after being reviewed by a larger than usual panel of scientists and was published (see below). Many people also take the view that in circumstances where research is giving rise to serious concerns that may need to be addressed sooner rather than later, it is acceptable for scientists to act as whistle blowers and draw attention to the problems their research is uncovering even prior to peer-reviewed publication.

Its only one example of gm being unsafe.

Its kind of funny to see how the big guns come out when you are near your target! Its happening here too!

Ziphius · 24-09-2012 08:46PM

shedweller wrote: »

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai

Its only one example of gm being unsafe.

Its kind of funny to see how the big guns come out when you are near your target! Its happening here too!

Chrissake! You didn't even read the review I linked. Why bother even asking?

From the review:

"A notorious study claiming that rats fed with GM potatoes expressing the gene for the lectin Galanthus nivalis agglutinin suffered damage to gut mucosa was published in 1999.36 Unusually, the paper was only published after one of the authors, Arpad Pusztai, announced this apparent finding on television.37 The Royal Society has since stated that the study ‘is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis’ and that ‘no conclusions should be drawn from it’: for example the authors used too few rats per test group to derive meaningful, statistically significant data."

shedweller · 24-09-2012 08:59PM

Sorry, what?

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 09:10PM

shedweller wrote: »

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai

Arpad Pusztai
The history of events and the quotes below are adapted from Andy Rowell's book, Don't Worry, It's Safe to Eat, Earthscan, 2003, ISBN 1853839329.
On 10 August 1998 the GM debate changed forever with the broadcast of a programme on British TV about GM food safety featuring a brief but revealing interview with Dr Arpad Pusztai about his research into GM food safety. Dr Pusztai told of his findings on the ill effects of GM potatoes on laboratory rats. He was subsequently gagged and suspended by his institute, the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland, his research team was disbanded, and his research data was confiscated. He was subjected to a campaign of vilification and misrepresentation by several pro-GM scientific bodies and pro-GM lobbyists, in an attempt to discredit him and his research.
The story began three years earlier. That's when the UK government's Scottish Office commissioned a three-year multi-centre research programme into the safety of GM food under the coordination of Dr Arpad Pusztai. At that time there was not a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal on the safety of GM food.
Dr Pusztai, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, was an eminent scientist. He was the world's leading expert on the plant proteins known as lectins. He had published three books and over 270 scientific studies.
He and his team fought off competition from 28 other research organisations from across Europe to be awarded the GBP1.6 million contract by the Scottish Office. The project methodology was also reviewed and passed by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) - the UK government's main funding body for the biological sciences.
The research involved feeding GM potatoes to rats and monitoring physiological changes. By late 1997 preliminary results from the rat-feeding experiments were showing totally unexpected and worrying changes in the size and weight of the rat's body organs. Liver and heart sizes were getting smaller, and so was the brain. There were also indications that the rats' immune systems were weakening.
Dr Pusztai was interviewed for a programme about GM food being made by Granada TV's World in Action. The filming took place in late June 1998 with the agreement of the director of the Rowett Institute, Professor Philip James, and in the presence of the Rowett Institute's press officer. The World in Action interview was broadcast on the evening of Monday 10 August 1998.
Later that evening Professor James congratulated Dr Pusztai on his TV appearance, commenting on "how well Arpad had handled the questions". The next day a further press release from the Rowett noted that 'a range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr Pusztai's concerns'. However, reportedly following two calls to the Rowett from the Prime Minister's Office, the Government, the Royal Society and the Rowett launched a vitriolic campaign to sack, silence and ridicule Dr Pusztai.
He was accused of unprofessional conduct because his work had not been peer-reviewed. However, his research subsequently passed peer-review after being reviewed by a larger than usual panel of scientists and was published (see below). Many people also take the view that in circumstances where research is giving rise to serious concerns that may need to be addressed sooner rather than later, it is acceptable for scientists to act as whistle blowers and draw attention to the problems their research is uncovering even prior to peer-reviewed publication.

Its only one example of gm being unsafe.

Its kind of funny to see how the big guns come out when you are near your target! Its happening here too!

Assuming Pusztai's work can be taken at face value, what does that mean for GM as a technology? Pusztai looked at rats eating potatoes expressing snowdrop lectin. What does this mean for say, corn modified with an anti-fungal using a different transfection method and then consumed by humans? Not a lot. No more than crash testing a Volvo has implications for the airplane safety- there's very broad common elements there, but you're not going to cite the results of one in a discussion of the other.

Genes and their effects are many and varied. Modification methods similarly so. Pusztai's story is good in rhetoric, but it doesn't fly so well in a scientific discussion.

humbert · 24-09-2012 09:18PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Assuming Pusztai's work can be taken at face value, what does that mean for GM as a technology? Pusztai looked at rats eating potatoes expressing snowdrop lectin. What does this mean for say, corn modified with an anti-fungal using a different transfection method and then consumed by humans? Not a lot. No more than crash testing a Volvo has implications for the airplane safety- there's very broad common elements there, but you're not going to cite the results of one in a discussion of the other.

Genes and their effects are many and varied. Modification methods similarly so. Pusztai's story is good in rhetoric, but it doesn't fly so well in a scientific discussion.

I read the wikipedia article on it and it would lead you to be very suspicious of what you are not being told. I guess I'm in a suspicious mood having read this recently.

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 09:43PM

humbert wrote: »

I read the wikipedia article on it and it would lead you to be very suspicious of what you are not being told. I guess I'm in a suspicious mood having read this recently.

Hm... Okay so it seems like Pusztai showed gut epithelium changes but didn't tie that to a harmful outcome. That plus everyone thought the paper was crap. I haven't read the paper, so I'm not going to dismiss it, but the buzz sure isn't so good. My point stands though, even if we assume Pusztai was on the money, it doesn't have much by way of implications for GM generally.

humbert · 24-09-2012 09:52PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Hm... Okay so it seems like Pusztai showed gut epithelium changes but didn't tie that to a harmful outcome. That plus everyone thought the paper was crap. I haven't read the paper, so I'm not going to dismiss it, but the buzz sure isn't so good. My point stands though, even if we assume Pusztai was on the money, it doesn't have much by way of implications for GM generally.

The paper would seem to have passed peer review before being published in Lancet.

What worried me is that there was a very swift and powerful action taken to get him sacked under very questionable circumstances. The other article I linked to goes into detail on how pharmaceutical companies are manipulating what peer reviewed trials are being published on their medicines.

It doesn't have much bearing on the current discussion and certainly doesn't indicate that there are general dangers. I would believe though, that if there are dangers associated with some GM crop we won't find out until people are giving birth to eight legged children.

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 10:06PM

humbert wrote: »

The paper would seem to have passed peer review before being published in Lancet.

What worried me is that there was a very swift and powerful action taken to get him sacked under very questionable circumstances. The other article I linked to goes into detail on how pharmaceutical companies are manipulating what peer reviewed trials are being published on their medicines.

Yes, they mostly do that by failing to publish negative studies and only publishing the positive ones. Add to that, it's hard to do independent research on medications until they're out of patent. It doesn't mean western medicine is necessarily unsafe or ineffective, but it does mean that some of it certainly is. Big fan of Ben Goldacre's work. A thorough reading of Bad Science would be good for everyone who wants to serious discuss the GM debate rather than playing at it.

Worth noting though that Goldacre has pretty scathing views of the GM industry- much like his views on Pharma- but not so much of an issue with the technology itself. That would be my position also. The likes of Monsanto are certainly amoral and dangerous, but GM has great potential.

humbert wrote: »

It doesn't have much bearing on the current discussion and certainly doesn't indicate that there are general dangers. I would believe though, that if there are dangers associated with some GM crop we won't find out until people are giving birth to eight legged children.

If so, that's a reason for more independent research. High quality, well designed. Not hysteria and not reliance on the garbage pushed by the likes of Natural News.

shedweller · 24-09-2012 10:06PM

Exactly. As some have said (and got many thanks for) over on the minimum wage thread: corporate profits come first.

AtomicHorror · 24-09-2012 10:18PM

shedweller wrote: »

Exactly. As some have said (and got many thanks for) over on the minimum wage thread: corporate profits come first.

That's a given. That's what regulators are for. Some of them are quite effective, most are not, and all could do better.

humbert · 24-09-2012 10:28PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Worth noting though that Goldacre has pretty scathing views of the GM industry- much like his views on Pharma- but not so much of an issue with the technology itself. That would be my position also. The likes of Monsanto are certainly amoral and dangerous, but GM has great potential.

That's exactly how I'd feel about it too. Really must read that book (and Bad Pharma).