GMO: Why transparency matters

125 Comments

• 

  Sorry, did I miss something? When did the global consensus that GMOs are safe become the null hypothesis?

  And when did an author use both first and third person in the same article? It appears some ‘additional’ material has been added, after the appeal to authority fallacy “Aniebo is a molecular geneticist at Oxford”. Yes… who is involved in AIDS research. This article does not appear to be written by a scientist.

  Your article is heavily influenced by personal ideology as witnessed by your repeating widely discredited ‘research’ (Seralini, Carmen) while ignoring 102-week studies by independent organizations, such as the Japanese Food Safety Agency (who didn’t require cancer-sprouting Sprague-Dawley rats to ‘find’ cancinogenic effects) – very disappointing if this was actually from any type of actual scientist.

  Even repeating the widely and easily disproven trope that only GMO-producing corporations have carried out studies – when >90% of GMOs are being or have been researched and developed in universities and government science facilities around the world.

  This is Climate Change denial in a different dress.

  No links, beyond anecdotal and ideologically-inspired extrapolation, and definitely no actual causal links, have been established between GMO consumption and any condition, disease or other health condition.

  Shame.

  Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    You need to read the article again. Her concrrns are well- founded and they have been expressed by others

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Fears may be real but the reasons for that fear are not.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
      • 

        If you can show that GM foods are generally safe and generally accepted as safe by all ACTUAL RESEARCHERS, you would be right that there is no basis for fear. But if you cannot you are a criminal by wanting FACTS to be hidden from people so that they consume GM foods ignorantly and die due to cancer, kidney or liver failure, or any other effects of consuming GM foods, or ingesting glyphosate.

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          Robert Wager is a pro-GMO industry spokesperson who spreads industry propaganda and pseudoscience. He is not to be trusted.

        • 

          YAY! Of course, anyone who challenges your immovable ideological view must be wrong, hence a SHILL!!

          Keep the echo chamber pure and keep those pesky facts away from us!!!

        • 

          Nope. Just confronting your industry-funded echo chamber and the antiscience, pro-corporate propaganda you spread.

        • 

          Nope, still not funded by industry or any corporate. Although the psychology of your fear of GMOs is interesting, coming from some deep seated delusional mistrust of authority and anything ‘corporate’. It’s funny how you pseudo-anarchists can’t see past the anti-corporate rhetoric that the multi-billion dollar Organic Food industry is playing on to sell you $9 carrots. Try again.

          But I also do find your lemming-like response calling me ‘anti-science’. How many science degrees to you have? How long have you worked in ANY type of scientific field? Silly me, what with the years of study and research towards my degrees, and now majoring in biology. What would I know about biochemistry or plant genetics, right?

      • 

        GMO operative still again

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          Nice to see you’re still really adding value to these discussions.

    • 

      Appeal to numbers (ad populum) logical fallacy.

      No. Greater than 95% of the worlds geneticists, biologists and food scientists agree on their equivalence with conventional foods.

      No actual study has ever shown ANY link between GMO consumption and illness or disease. At best, these claims are extrapolated and conjectured in the papers.

      Try READING some of them.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
      • 

        “No. Greater than 95% of the worlds geneticists, biologists and food scientists agree on their equivalence with conventional foods”?

        Let me tell you, at least, that “Equivalence with conventional foods” is NOT a scientific way to establish the safety of GM food. Feeding rats over short-term and long-term and clinical toxicological studies are.

        Link has been established between GM foods and organ and tissue damage by all the safety studies. You reject them because you are anti-fact and pro-lie. The requirement however is to establish that GM foods are safe and this is the duty of producers and defenders for money like you.

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          Actually, it is. Again you are demonstrating your ignorance of science. Equivalence is the measure, just as ‘GRAS’ is. Do you need me to explain GRAS to you, or can you Google that one yourself?

          No, no link has been established. I CHALLENGE YOU RIGHT HERE to provide me with one single study that clearly demonstrates a causal link.

          And rat feeding? Did you fail to read my links? Sprague-Dawley rats develop cancer drinking pure rainwater, hence Seralini’s debunked nonsense.

          But here’s the link again for you – a 104-Week feeding study on rats with GMO soy. Even you can read this one.
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312

          I’ll wait.

        • 

          I was nonplused to read your “Actually, it is” which is intended to refute my assertion that “equivalence with conventional food is NOT a scientific way to establish the safety of GM food”.

          As a beginning point for showing why I was nonplussed, necessary for teaching you and people like you, note that

          “EQUIVALENCE” is not the same as SAFE, or does not mean safe Because equivalence means “having the same amount, value, purpose, qualities, etc” (Cambridge Dictionary online), while safe means “not dangerous or likely to cause harm” (Cambridge Dictionary online)

          Therefore, equivalence is NOT safe, or does not mean safe.

          Equivalence, NO MATTER HOW SUBSTANTIAL IT IS, is NOT the same as safe, does not mean the same thing as safe, and will not have the same implication, effect or consequence as safe would have when it is applied to any real issue, including comparison of safety between GM food and natural, organic or conventional food. Reasons for this fact:

          In terms of comparison of GM food with conventional food, equivalence DOES NOT tell us anything about the nature of the cells of the GM food, which the human eyes cannot see, in comparison with the nature of the cells of the conventional food, also cannot be seen by the human eyes. In other words, equivalence does not tell us anything about the changes in the structure of the chemical that makes up the cell of the GM food, due to the RE-engineering of the genome of the source of the food, in comparison with the structure of the chemical that makes up the cell of a conventional food, neither of which the human eyes can see. Also, it does not tell us anything about the effect of genetic RE-engineering on the cellular metabolism of the source of a GM food in comparison with the cellular metabolism of a source of conventional food.

          Illustration:

          The milk that contained L-tryptophan produced by Showa Denko KK, Japan, through the genetic RE-engineering of bacteria was certified safe for sale on the basis of substantial equivalence between it and the conventional milk produced earlier by the same company. Several foreign genes were inserted into the genome of the bacteria that was used for producing it instead of the use of bacteria cultured in a vat used for natural process of producing conventional milk. The foreign genes expressed certain enzymes at much higher levels in the GM bacteria than the enzymes are expressed in natural or conventional (non. GM) bacteria. They also expressed in the GM bacteria other enzymes that are not normally present in the natural (non-G.M) bacteria.

          Increased production of tryptophan was engendered by the alteration of the cellular metabolism of the bacteria by the foreign enzymes produced as consequence of the genetic RE-engineering of bacteria.

          Study showed later that the tryptophan that was produced through genetic RE-engineering of bacteria contained one or more highly toxic contaminants and that the most prominent of the toxins, called EBT, was a dimerization product of tryptophan. It is noted that this comprised less than 0.1% of the total weight of the product—-which means that the GM milk was substantially equivalent to the conventional milk—-but it caused the disease called eosinophilia myalgia syndrome or EMS which caused the death of not less than 37 people, the permanent disability of not less than 1,500 people, different degrees of allergic reaction, and other health problems suffered by not less than 2,000 people who drank the GM milk.

          What Arpad Pusztai observed about the GM potato that he experimented with in order to ascertain its safety which surprised him, having carried out similar experiment with lectin earlier, gives us another example in support of the fact that equivalence of GM food compared with conventional food does not mean that the GM food is safe.

          As a generalised proof that equivalence, no matter how substantial it may be between any GM food and any conventional (non-GM) food, does not mean safe, it is noted actual researchers agree that in order to establish the safety of GM food, case-by-case safety study of GMOs and GM foods is absolutely necessary and inevitable. This followed from the fact that study revealed difference between two GMOs and GM foods although the RE-engineering of the GMOs was done the same way and other considerations were the same. Studied also revealed differences between one GMO with the parent line.

          You wrote: “Equivalence is the measure, just as ‘GRAS’ is”. Right? Is “equivalence” not based on analysis while GRAS is based on opinion? There has been chemical analysis of GM foods and conventional foods from which was PRECIPITATED substantial equivalence theory BUT there has NOT been any safety study of GM foods from which a general agreement about the safety of GM foods has been decided and declared, or based on which GM foods are generally regarded as safe (GRAS).

          If all safety study of GM foods so far carried out with rats expressed toxicity or allergenicity, accident cannot be said to have occurred. It established a link or a cause. As corroboration, the only one human safety study so far carried out was stopped because of observed transfer of transgenic DNA . Read Hill’s criteria for establishing a causal factor.

          Provide me any repeat of the safety study carried out by Seralini et al—-which was a repeat of that which Monsanto claimed it carried out using the same method and rats that Monsanto used—in order to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that his result was wrong. The falsehood of a safety experiment is established by an independent expert or group of experts repeating the experiment and not by providing another experiment, which is what you did; worse, a website that it governmental and pro-big biotech. company

        • 

          OK, again your obvious bias and lack of reading comprehension skills are on display.

          Can you name ONE food that has been studies and found to be ‘safe’. I’ll give you a hint – science can NEVER prove something to be totally ‘safe’, because no such state exists. Water is not ‘safe’ because under certain conditions it can contain bacteria, viruses, imperfections, allergens, microbes etc that can cause harm. When consumed in large quantities, water can cause death. Hence, if you even actually KNEW a SINGLE SCIENTIST, you’d understand that science can never declare something as 100% safe.
          No food has EVER been researched and proven ‘safe’, only GRAS.

          Secondly, read up, fool. The L-tryptophan events were traced back to a contaminated lot from the Japanese manufacturer. It had nothing to do with the genetic modification. The simple fact that you seem to get all you agenda points from quack sites shows me you’re incapable of even elementary level research and fact checking.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilia%E2%80%93myalgia_syndrome
          https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/trypto.html

          Pustzai is a discredited fraud – even within his own organization. I even provided you with plenty of links to the global scientific opinion. Even his own director said his ‘research’ was flawed and biased by his personal views.

          You CONTINUALLY REGURGITATE that there have not been safety studies on GM food, despite my posting dozens of links to independent studies showing just what you want, you employ the age-old bait-and-switch tactic of the intellectually dishonest, agenda driven ideologue.

          You are nothing more than a fraud regurgitating discredited nonsense, refusing to address or even acknowledge the weight of science.

          How about you come clean, Awele. No amount of evidence will ever change you viewpoint, because it’s not a position you’ve reached through logic or rational thinking. It’s purely emotive and irrational.

        • 

          TerryHill, I was nonplused to read your “Actually, it is” which is intended to refute my assertion that “equivalence with conventional food is NOT a scientific way to establish the safety of GM food”.

          As a beginning point for showing why I was nonplussed, necessary for teaching you and people like you, note that

          “EQUIVALENCE” is not the same as SAFE, or does not mean safe Because equivalence means “having the same amount, value, purpose, qualities, etc” (Cambridge Dictionary online), while safe means “not dangerous or likely to cause harm” (Cambridge Dictionary online)

          Therefore, equivalence is NOT safe, or does not mean safe.

          Equivalence, NO MATTER HOW SUBSTANTIAL IT IS, is NOT the same as safe, does not mean the same thing as safe, and will not have the same implication, effect or consequence as safe would have when it is applied to any real issue, including comparison of safety between GM food and natural, organic or conventional food. Reasons for this fact:

          In terms of comparison of GM food with conventional food, equivalence DOES NOT tell us anything about the nature of the cells of the GM food, which the human eyes cannot see, in comparison with the nature of the cells of the conventional food, also cannot be seen by the human eyes. In other words, equivalence does not tell us anything about the changes in the structure of the chemical that makes up the cell of the GM food, due to the RE-engineering of the genome of the source of the food, in comparison with the structure of the chemical that makes up the cell of a conventional food, neither of which the human eyes can see. Also, it does not tell us anything about the effect of genetic RE-engineering on the cellular metabolism of the source of a GM food in comparison with the cellular metabolism of a source of conventional food.

          Illustration:

          The milk that contained L-tryptophan produced by Showa Denko KK, Japan, through the genetic RE-engineering of bacteria was certified safe for sale on the basis of substantial equivalence between it and the conventional milk produced earlier by the same company. Several foreign genes were inserted into the genome of the bacteria that was used for producing it instead of the use of bacteria cultured in a vat used for natural process of producing conventional milk. The foreign genes expressed certain enzymes at much higher levels in the GM bacteria than the enzymes are expressed in natural or conventional (non. GM) bacteria. They also expressed in the GM bacteria other enzymes that are not normally present in the natural (non-G.M) bacteria.

          Increased production of tryptophan was engendered by the alteration of the cellular metabolism of the bacteria by the foreign enzymes produced as consequence of the genetic RE-engineering of bacteria.

          Study showed later that the tryptophan that was produced through genetic RE-engineering of bacteria contained one or more highly toxic contaminants and that the most prominent of the toxins, called EBT, was a dimerization product of tryptophan. It is noted that this comprised less than 0.1% of the total weight of the product—-which means that the GM milk was substantially equivalent to the conventional milk—-but it caused the disease called eosinophilia myalgia syndrome or EMS which caused the death of not less than 37 people, the permanent disability of not less than 1,500 people, different degrees of allergic reaction, and other health problems suffered by not less than 2,000 people who drank the GM milk.

          What Arpad Pusztai observed about the GM potato that he experimented with in order to ascertain its safety which surprised him, having carried out similar experiment with lectin earlier, gives us another example in support of the fact that equivalence of GM food compared with conventional food does not mean that the GM food is safe.

          As a generalised proof that equivalence, no matter how substantial it may be between any GM food and any conventional (non-GM) food, does not mean safe, it is noted actual researchers agree that in order to establish the safety of GM food, case-by-case safety study of GMOs and GM foods is absolutely necessary and inevitable. This followed from the fact that study revealed difference between two GMOs and GM foods although the RE-engineering of the GMOs was done the same way and other considerations were the same. Studied also revealed differences between one GMO with the parent line.

          You wrote: “Equivalence is the measure, just as ‘GRAS’ is”. Right? Is “equivalence” not based on analysis while GRAS is based on opinion? There has been chemical analysis of GM foods and conventional foods from which was PRECIPITATED substantial equivalence theory BUT there has NOT been any safety study of GM foods from which a general agreement about the safety of GM foods has been decided and declared, or based on which GM foods are generally regarded as safe (GRAS).

          If all safety study of GM foods so far carried out with rats expressed toxicity or allergenicity, accident cannot be said to have occurred. It established a link or a cause. As corroboration, the only one human safety study so far carried out was stopped because of observed transfer of transgenic DNA . Read Hill’s criteria for establishing a causal factor.

        • 

          I was nonplused to read your “Actually, it is” which is intended to refute my assertion that “equivalence with conventional food is NOT a scientific way to establish the safety of GM food”.

          As a beginning point for showing why I was nonplussed, necessary for teaching you and people like you, note that

          “EQUIVALENCE” is not the same as SAFE, or does not mean safe Because equivalence means “having the same amount, value, purpose, qualities, etc” (Cambridge Dictionary online), while safe means “not dangerous or likely to cause harm” (Cambridge Dictionary online)

          Therefore, equivalence is NOT safe, or does not mean safe.

          Equivalence, NO MATTER HOW SUBSTANTIAL IT IS, is NOT the same as safe, does not mean the same thing as safe, and will not have the same implication, effect or consequence as safe would have when it is applied to any real issue, including comparison of safety between GM food and natural, organic or conventional food. Reasons for this fact:

          In terms of comparison of GM food with conventional food, equivalence DOES NOT tell us anything about the nature of the cells of the GM food, which the human eyes cannot see, in comparison with the nature of the cells of the conventional food, also cannot be seen by the human eyes. In other words, equivalence does not tell us anything about the changes in the structure of the chemical that makes up the cell of the GM food, due to the RE-engineering of the genome of the source of the food, in comparison with the structure of the chemical that makes up the cell of a conventional food, neither of which the human eyes can see. Also, it does not tell us anything about the effect of genetic RE-engineering on the cellular metabolism of the source of a GM food in comparison with the cellular metabolism of a source of conventional food.

          Illustration:

          The milk that contained L-tryptophan produced by Showa Denko KK, Japan, through the genetic RE-engineering of bacteria was certified safe for sale on the basis of substantial equivalence between it and the conventional milk produced earlier by the same company. Several foreign genes were inserted into the genome of the bacteria that was used for producing it instead of the use of bacteria cultured in a vat used for natural process of producing conventional milk. The foreign genes expressed certain enzymes at much higher levels in the GM bacteria than the enzymes are expressed in natural or conventional (non. GM) bacteria. They also expressed in the GM bacteria other enzymes that are not normally present in the natural (non-G.M) bacteria.

          Increased production of tryptophan was engendered by the alteration of the cellular metabolism of the bacteria by the foreign enzymes produced as consequence of the genetic RE-engineering of bacteria.

          Study showed later that the tryptophan that was produced through genetic RE-engineering of bacteria contained one or more highly toxic contaminants and that the most prominent of the toxins, called EBT, was a dimerization product of tryptophan. It is noted that this comprised less than 0.1% of the total weight of the product—-which means that the GM milk was substantially equivalent to the conventional milk—-but it caused the disease called eosinophilia myalgia syndrome or EMS which caused the death of not less than 37 people, the permanent disability of not less than 1,500 people, different degrees of allergic reaction, and other health problems suffered by not less than 2,000 people who drank the GM milk.

          What Arpad Pusztai observed about the GM potato that he experimented with in order to ascertain its safety which surprised him, having carried out similar experiment with lectin earlier, gives us another example in support of the fact that equivalence of GM food compared with conventional food does not mean that the GM food is safe.

          As a generalised proof that equivalence, no matter how substantial it may be between any GM food and any conventional (non-GM) food, does not mean safe, it is noted actual researchers agree that in order to establish the safety of GM food, case-by-case safety study of GMOs and GM foods is absolutely necessary and inevitable. This followed from the fact that study revealed difference between two GMOs and GM foods although the RE-engineering of the GMOs was done the same way and other considerations were the same. Studied also revealed differences between one GMO with the parent line.

          You wrote: “Equivalence is the measure, just as ‘GRAS’ is”. Right? Is “equivalence” not based on analysis while GRAS is based on opinion? There has been chemical analysis of GM foods and conventional foods from which was PRECIPITATED substantial equivalence theory BUT there has NOT been any safety study of GM foods from which a general agreement about the safety of GM foods has been decided and declared, or based on which GM foods are generally regarded as safe (GRAS).

          If all safety study of GM foods so far carried out with rats expressed toxicity or allergenicity, accident cannot be said to have occurred. It established a link or a cause. As corroboration, the only one human safety study so far carried out was stopped because of observed transfer of transgenic DNA . Read Hill’s criteria for establishing a causal factor.

  • 

    First and foremost Mr Hill this is Ify Aniebo… No AIDS there….get your facts right…
    “Ify Aniebo (BSc, MSc, MRes, MPH) is a molecular geneticist from Oxford University,
    with a master’s in public health currently working on her PhD with a focus on
    the genomic determinant of Malaria infection. She most recently was honoured by
    the mayor of London as one of the most innovative international students.
    She was awarded the
    prestigious Young Person of the Year Award and the Best Use of Science Award by
    the future awards Africa. A bill gates scholar, she has worked at the top
    Genetic research institutions such as Illumina and the Sanger Institute. She
    was also recognized by Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan during the
    centenary celebrations as an inventor and innovator.”

    2) In no where in this entire article is Seralini mentioned once … she does reference Arpad Pusztai work ” world’s leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, Arpad Pusztai conducted the first ever independent experiment.”—-so its either you are one of the many paid agents that have been infesting our country recently…

    3) You completely ignored the reference she made to the No evidence to extra yield as published in the New York times relative to Organic food…You ignore the lies that have been told by companies such as Monsanto eg that glyphosate is biodegradable and you ignore the reference she made to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – WHO’s cancer agency…You ignore the rise of Weed and pest resistance she also mentioned…

    4) Several Independent scientist and geneticist will disagree with your assesment

    Lastly why are non-Nigerians trying to get involved in this conversation….Mr Hill…. seems to me that the non-proliferating property of GMOs as well as patent claims / contamination of indigenous species come together to further perpetuate and bind Africa in dependency to the West…like colonialisim and slavery was not enough for you people huh…..its just never enough is it…. The new york times article clearly shows there is no difference in Yield between GMOs and conventional organic… we will go with organic thanks..

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Actually, ‘concerned nigerian’, I read her LinkedIn profile that says she’s currently working as a HIV research consultant.
      1) I do not question her qualification, however I do question her motives – and whether this was actually written by her. It seems unusual for an actual scientist to fail to weigh up the multitude of unbiased evidence supporting GMO safety.

      2) She does not mention Seralini by name, but she references his, and GMO Judy Carmen, in stating that there is any ‘studies’ that show any link between GMO (she actually refers to glyphosate herbicide) and cancer. The only ‘studies’ – all of which have been widely discredited – that claim such links are by these two paid activists (both funded heavily by pro-Organic producer groups).

      Oh, and nice subtle use of the ‘you are a paid agent’ trope. No, I’m a biology major who just doesn’t appreciate when fringe activists falsely claim to represent the weight of scientific opinion. They do not.

      3) The ‘no evidence of extra yield’ claim as published was also by an activist citing an organic food group’s study. The fact that you fail to understand that in controlled, insect and weed-free environments, both GMO and conventional crops will produce the same yield is YOUR failure to understand science. The GMO crops were not bred to produce more yield. They have been developed to be pest/pesticide resistant. Therefore, where conventional crops and GMO crops are grown side-by-side in pest-infested areas, the GMO crops DO yield MUCH higher quantities. Please, try and use some elementary critical thinking skills.
      (Try looking at how Bt Brinjal and Bt Eggplant have helped farmers in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka
      https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/30/bangladeshs-gmo-eggplant-success-angers-anti-gmo-activists/)

      4) Several scientists – most of whom are funded (and aren’t even secretive about it) by Organic Food producers in an attempt to demonize their main market opponent. The lead ‘scientists’ are Seralini, Carmen, plus a few others. Other ‘PhDs’ and activists, with doctorates in computer science, or artificial intelligence, or politics (Like Vanda Shiva, Benbrook et al). They stand out against literally THOUSANDS of other PhD geneticists and biologists around the world – not just in the US – who agree on GMO efficacy and safety.
      https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/13/how-anti-gmo-activists-hurt-the-worlds-poorest/

      Never mind that GMO research is being given away FOR FREE to African farmers – like Golden Rice, and (nearing release) drought/salt resistant grain crops (wheat, sorgum, barley). You just keep that anti-corporate far-left nonsense perpetuating. It will be ALL Nigerians that suffer if perfectly safe food technology is rejected based on unfounded ideological fears (also fostered by Western interests).

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
      • 

        What would you say is her motive? What is your motive for defending GMOs and GM foods while there is no consensus on the safety of the substance and ALL safety studies so far carried out have shown that toxicity, allergenicity, or carcinogenicity was expressed? Obviously, you are projecting—psychology, means putting your guilt into her action. Seralini et al STANDS tall as a giant as the invalidation of the claim that was made by Monsanto and evidence of the long-tern effect of GM food and glyphosate.

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          Motive ? He gets paid

        • 

          Oh, snap! Everyone’s a shill again?

          You should change your moniker to “OneTrickPony”

          I don’t work for any biotech company, any big ag company. Sorry if that bursts your bubble of illusion.

        • 

          Because he is an agrochemical/biotech industry spokesperson and activist. He spreads antiscience, industry propaganda to defend and promote the industry.

        • 

          Really? I’d be interested how you came to that conclusion. Please, share?

          Is it because I’m a biology major who understands how genetics and biochemistry works? Surely that isn’t your only criteria?

          I don’t work for any BigAg, BioTech or similar company, so that couldn’t be it? I don’t even moonlight as a spokesman? I don’t even own any shares in them.

          Oh, I know. Is it because my university is researching GMOs by developing (for FREE, not for profit, not for industry) a modified wheat crop that will help combat the effects of climate change, funded 100% by non-industry sources? It’s because I’ve actually read all the research on BOTH sides of the argument, and I’m educated, not simply motivated by my delusional conspiracy theories and baseless ideological opposition. Of course!

        • 

          I’ve been following his posts for seven years. I think I know an industry spokesperson when I see one.

  • 

    still another operative

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Still got nothing of substance to add, and weakly clamoring for some type of validation by the echo chamber of ignorance, hey grinninglibber?

      Sorry, your still wrong.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
• 

  So basically, the science does not agree with the author, so she wants more investigating until someone shows her the result she wants. Unfortunately, she has been fooled by American propagandists who promote false information about GMOs. Every major science organization agrees that GMOs are safe.

  There is no evidence that GMOs cause illnesses or any other negative heath effects in humans. There is abundant evidence that this technology can help improve the standard of living of Nigerians.

  Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    Yea the same ones that told us cigarettes had no links to cancer, the same ones that said glyphosate was bio-degradable…the same ones that say GMOs and glyphosate use has no relation to what is currently happening to children and adults in Rural Argentina…. the same ones that say kidney diseases as seen in Srilanka has nothing to do with GMOs and glyphosate… yea those scientist that are a by product of the corruption of science ….yet lets ignore the FDA revolving door system as well as the FACT that FDA’s own scientist said this technology would be linked to diseases…and lastly since this is all so safe as you say it is and the whole of Europe is MAD…she is simply asking that the amazing scientist at NAS conduct their own animal experiment with observers and Civil society in observance…simple…science should be able to be replicated right??? and the result will silence everyone….so whats the big deal ……

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Your conspiracy theories are not supported by scientific evidence. European scientists and farmers agree that GMOs are safe. Europe loves to buy GMOs from American farmers. Only ignorant European politicians are standing in the way of this technology..

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
      • 

        Sure….like the Bulgarians that burnt GMO maize fields … Or the fact that greece turned back exports from thaliand because the conola oil they used was GMO contaminated…. Or was it a conspiracy theory that Burkinafaso kicked GMO cotton out and are working to revert to conventional cotton by 2018..

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsPkBiVITW0……yup thats a conspiracy theory alright…thats the exact description your ilk gave all the early whistle blowers that told the world about Asbestos,DDT,glyphosate and Tobacco’s link to cancer……we in good company then…

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          It was the length of the fibres that is of concern to the farmers not the Bt trait. They are moving the Bt trait into longer fibre varieties as we speak

        • 

          GMO operative alert!

        • 

          Robert Wager is a pro-GMO industry spokesperson. Do not believe a word he says.

        • 

          bwa,ha,ha…you are hilarious…

        • 

          wager — everyone is on to you. Give it up.

        • 

          NO, again facts fail you. The Bulgarian farmers were incited by a large group of anti-GMO activists, who then burnt down several acres (!!!) of crops, mostly for the video and propaganda purposes.

      • 

        Present scientific evidence that supports your views that GM foods are safe. E.g. present evidence that the GM tomato, the first GM food, flavr savr, was certified safe for consumption based on scientific safety study and not conspiracy theory by USFDA. In other words, present evidence that it is still in the market in the USA . Hence, show that you have facts and not PAID conspiracy theory or pitiable ignorance.

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          You are a moron. I’ve provided you, IN THIS FORUM, with a starting list of over 40 Scientific Studies, from INDEPENDENT universities, laboratories and government agencies, most of them OUTSIDE of the US, all with ZERO funding or association with any ‘big Ag’ or ‘big Pharma’.

          READ IT. Stop asking over and over for the same thing if you’re simply too stupid to understand it.

        • 

          Why do you bother to keep asking when you will only ignore it and claim it’s bogus without even reading it? Your an embarrassment to your country, a spineless apologist and a pathetic hack, Awele.

    • 

      No, they didn’t. Stop repeating the fallacies you’ve failed to fact-check from your favorite activist site.

      Not one country in Europe has a total ban on GMOs. Some have moratoriums, some have only approved limited varieties, and all still import and use GM products.

      But of course, your argument is valid. Because other countries have ideological opposition, so should we! Yes, Saudi Arabia and several other countries don’t allow women to drive or vote! So should we!!!!

      Appeal to popular opinion (ad populum) is a logical fallacy. Because other countries ‘do it’ doesn’t make it true or right.

      Cigarette companies hired actors to portray doctors, then claim they were safe. Very few ‘real’ doctors supported this, as science and medicine had PROVED the link between smoking and lung cancer in the late 1940s.

      The ‘shills’ of the day promoting anti-science thinking are today’s Dr Oz, Dr Seralini and Dr Carmen.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    The author has neither said nor given the impression that she wants the result to agree with her view. She is not as unintelligent as you have demonstrated you are not to recognise the fallacy in that.. It is preposterous to imagine and claim that she wants a result that suits her.

    To ask NAS for evidence that is generally known and agreed with to support its assertion that GM foods are safe is not to demand what suits her.

    The author is disappointed, and expressed her disappointment—very clearly—that the Nigerian Academy of Science (NAS) claimed that GM foods are safe based on what the individuals and bodies that promote and defend the safety of GM foods for financial benefits or other interests—-that is WITHOUT PROOF or certification by at least a group of independent experts—have written. She noted that the highest science-based body in Nigeria has NO safety study of its own as basis for asserting the safety of any GM foods. It generalised the safety of GM foods without even a particular evidence of a safe GM food. This is true as I also know. This is very shameful.

    The author wants any proof that it has been established that GM foods are safe. In this regard you know, at least, that there is no agreement that GM foods are safe. It is a general fact and not the view of the author. You know also that ALL GM foods so far studied or experimented with in order to establish safety revealed allergenicity, toxicity, carcinogenicity or less nutrient content. This is a well-known fact and not the view of the author. From the first GM food, GM tomato named Flavr Savr by its producer, Calgene Inc. USA, to GM potato researched with by A. Pusztai’s team at Rowett peer-reviewed by SWB Ewen and further investigated by Lancet with SIX experts before publication, to Monsanto’s GM corn NK 603 and MON 810, to GM milk by Showa Denko, etc. NONE of these did not express toxicity, allergenicity or other effect, or more then one one effect.

    The author wants a general position and public good on GM foods and not her view or interest. Provide the general and verifiable position that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals or SHAME is yours.

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    You claim: “There is no evidence that GMOs cause illnesses or any other negative heath effects in humans”.

    By making this claim, you put the duty to show that GM foods are safe or consumers. This is very unreasonable and ridiculous. Beside this fact, it is contrary to the rule—refer to Nuremberg Code and Genetic Bill of Rights—which demands that the producer, promoter and defender of GM food has the duty to show that it is safe.

    Should a producer of any food ensure that the food is safe before it is sold or given to anyone or a consumer of the food shyould have the duty to show that it is safe? If I come to your home and you give me food to eat, have you the duty to ensure that the food that you give to me is safe before you give it to me or I have the duty to show that it is safe?

    But, in order to KILL your claim and bury it, I give just one evidence. How was the milk that contained L-tryptophan produced by Showa Denko KK, Japan? Generic Engineering of cow to produce more milk tha it produces naturally. Did it kill anyone who consuejmd it? Yes, at least 23 people in 1989 due the eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS). See Hill, et al., 1993; Druker, 2001;
    See. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1169&context=cjlpp

    You also wrote: “There is abundant evidence that this technology can help improve the standard of living of Nigerians”.

    Present the “abundant evidence”.

    I give you just one evidence that this is a lie or false. The GM rice named “golden rice” by Ingo Potrykus and Peter Bayer contained FAR LESS vitamin A than they claimed it contained.

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    Show us ONE long term human study that shows they are safe. You can’t even show us one long term animal study showing they are safe. Yet when Seralini did the same study as Monsanto, using the same rats and the same feed and found serious health issues Monsanto tried their best to discredit him, but guess what, his work still stands. I will be waiting for that one long term study.

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Here is a discussion of some long term studies. Read the literature. There are hundreds of independent studies demonstrating the safety of genetically improved crops. In addition, every major science organization acknowledges the safety.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Sorry Anne. No.
      I see you’re regurgitating what you read, rather than fact-checking.
      Seralini did no such thing. He’s used different rats (he deliberately used Sprague-Dawley rats because they spontaneously grow massive tumors – they were bred specifically for cancer research)
      https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/33/11/2768.full.pdf

      Here is an independent (Japanese Government Food Safety Agency) 104-week study on rats fed GMO soy. I know you wont read it, or bother to look at the list of 40+ independent studies I provided from scientists around the world, because your ignorance of science is obvious, and your inability to critically assess evidence that could possibly change your mind is non-existant.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
• 

  Dear Terry and Mike,

  I am NOT surprised by your views because you failed to show that her facts are fictions or falsehood. For the facts presented by her which you chose to criticise, you did so based on the propaganda of Monsanto, others such Biotech companies and their paid promoters of GMOs and GM foods.

  What are her core concerns and facts about them presented by her?

  1). The indolence, gullibility, subservience and slavishness of Nigerian Academy of Science

  In this regard, she noted: “A month ago, The Nigerian Academy of Science (NAS) declared that genetically modified foods (GMOs) are safe for consumption” But did not present, as she noted, “the methods by which the apparent foremost authority on science in Nigeria came to this conclusion”. In this regard, she noted: “I looked forward to reading about the animal trials they carried out to test the effects of consuming these foods over a 200-day period” but found that the Nigerian Academy of Science, Nigeria, has NOT carried out any INDEPENDENT safety study of any GM foods.

  Questions to defend facts:
  1a). Did the Nigerian Academy of Science (NAS) declare that GM foods are safe for consumption? Yes.
  1b). Did it present safety study carried out by it (independently) of any GM food as backup for its categorical and generalised assertion that GM foods are safe? No

  2). She also quoted NAS thus:
  “Before these products are sent into the market, lots of trials and investigations are done by so many agencies, such as the Academy of Sciences Worldwide, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), World Health Organisation (WHO), to monitor and make sure they are safe for human consumption and they have recommended”?

  2a) Is the statement true? No.
  To establish that statement is not true:
  2b) Where are the “LOTS OF TRIALS AND INVESTIGATIONS” (my emphasis) by the organisations mentioned? None.
  2c) Has UNESCO and WHO carried out any safety study of any GM food? NO.
  2d). Where is the evidence that they made sure that GM foods are safe for human consumption? None
  2e). Should Nigerian Academy of Science leave the establishment of the safety of GM foods to foreign organisation, bearing it in mind that:
  * It is trusted and relied on by Nigerians as an organisation made up of the BEST brains and researchers in the country? No
  ** Each of the organisations relied on by it represent the interests of who pays for its work or pays the salaries of its staff, the national interests of its citizens, the political interests of the government on the matter, and the commercial interests of the producers and promoters of GMOs and GM foods? No.

  Safety was her second CORE concern. In this regard, I ask to establish her views are facts:
  3a). Is Independent safety study and general agreement absolutely necessary and inevitable for asserting that GM foods are safe for consumption? Yes.
  3b) Any such available? No.
  3c). Any GENERALLY accepted safety study with rats or mice—-generally accepted because it was peer reviewed by independent and expert reviewers and published in trusted journal? No
  1d). Is there any evidence of clinical study carried out with volunteers which showed that the GM foods used were safe? No.

  ON THE CONTRARY:

  1). The first GM food, GM tomato, Flavr Savr, produced by Calgene Inc. USA, was shown to be toxic by independent groups after UNFDA hid its report because it expressed acute toxicity. Alliance for BioIntegrity used FoI (Freedom of information) provision to force it to make it public. Calgene, USA, and Alliance for Bio-Integrity got independent safety study of it and found rats used died due to its toxicity.

  2). The first INDEPENDENT study of GM food, GM potato, by Dr. A. Pusztai Peer- reviewed by Dr. SWB Ewen was rightly reported by her. The study report was further investigated by SIX (6) reviewers for Lancet journal—–instead of only two (2) normally used by the journal—-and FIVE (5) of them confirmed thoroughness and accuracy of their research and report. The only man who refused to write a report. Dr. John Picket, was a paid consultant. He initiated antagonism against the researchers and propaganda against their research finding; even engineered efforts to stop the publication of the report, but failed.

  3). Gilles-Eric Seralini et al, cited by her and criticised by you, was REPEAT or confirmatory study and NOT study initiated by the researchers. Monsanto carried the study out and claimed “no effect observed”. The group used EXACTLY the same rats, the same number of rats and the same method that Monsanto used BUT achieved a totally different result being results even outside their interest and investigation——very large tumours. Therefore, your criticisms should be given to Monsanto and not to the group.
  The study, carried out over two years established long-term effects. it is noted that Monsanto argued against short-tern study by Pusztai and others as effects claiming that they will not exist in the long-term. This is why their study is absolutely useful.

  In all, NO repeat of A. Pusztai and SWB Ewen (1999) or Seralini et al (2012)—retracted on political and commercial grounds—- REPUBLISHED 2014 to uphold pure and honest research—–has shown that their findings were false. Therefore, they STAND.

  Mike,

  You wrote:
  “So basically, the science does not agree with the author, so she wants more investigating until someone shows her the result she wants”.

  This is false.

  She wants
  1). EVIDENCE that safety study was carried by NAS and other groups of people who claim that they carried out safety studies
  2), Evidence that they followed the right methodology
  3). Evidence that there were peer reviews
  4). Evidence that results showed that the GM foods studied are safe
  5). Evidence that this position is held generally and, hence, that ALL nations should eat and drink GM foods with confidence because they will not suffer cancers, diabetes, kidney failure, and allergic reactions, by consuming them or ingesting the synthetic herbicides and pesticides sprayed on GMO crops, these being the results obtained with rats and mice for the solid and liquid GM foods and the chemicals for studies so far carried out.

  Terry:

  If GM foods are safe is taken as the null hypothesis, it is the null hypothesis of the producers, promoters and defenders of GMOs and GM foods and not that of the author, Ify. This was first declared by the USFDA after its study of the GM tomato, Flavr Savr, in 1984. Based on this null hypothesis, the USFDA declared that there will be no need for any safety study of GM foods. Therefore it made a a hypothesis—-an untested opinion or feeling—-a basis for generalisation or theory. Its failure led to the declaration of the also unscientific Substantial Equivalence.

  It is in Ify’s credit that she is a molecular biologist and not fallacy for mentioning it. She is not a journalist, administrator, or business person as we have among the promoters and defenders of GMOs and GM foods.

  FINALLY, Terry and Mike, present to us evidence of GM food studied and certified safe, names of researchers, peer review and peer reviewers, and general accepted of result.
  If no general agreement, should any GM food be in the market or any public place?
  Should research not continues and safety achieved before GM foods are put into the markets and consumed by nations?
  Present evidence that the herbicides and pesticides are safe.

  Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    Dear Prince Awele,

    It appears that you also have no scientific understanding, but an ideological imperative.

    My criticisms of this article is that it appears to be written in both the first and the third person, and contains opinions contrary to over 90% of the world’s working biologists, geneticists, and biochemists. It repeats (almost cut-and-paste) several anti-GMO activist tropes that have been discredited by independent scientists from around the world. It fails the basic legitimacy test.

    You’ve also made some errors in your ‘questions to defend facts;
    1b). Did it present safety study carried out by it (independently) of any GM food as backup for its categorical and generalised assertion that GM foods are safe? No – it was asked by the government to do an assessment, not experiment. It undertook a meta-study based on the existing data – for and against.

    2a) Is the statement true? No. (YES IT IS) – it is apparent that you are unable to search any academic databases and rely on the commentary of others for your ‘facts’.
    To establish that statement is not true:
    2b) Where are the “LOTS OF TRIALS AND INVESTIGATIONS” (my emphasis) by the organisations mentioned? None.
    – incorrect. The listed organisations HAVE commissioned independent labs to undertake studies for them, and, more importantly, HAVE conducted investigations via meta-studies of research conducted in universities and government labs and research agencies from around the globe: I will include a very abridged link to about 50 studies (recent, independent and from around the world) in the next post.
    2c) Has UNESCO and WHO carried out any safety study of any GM food? NO. – actually, they have. And they’ve studied the studies, too.
    2d). Where is the evidence that they made sure that GM foods are safe for human consumption? None – because you choose not to see it to protect your ideological viewpoint.

    My questions to you are thus:
    1) Why would the author have to refer to herself in the third person, RESTATING her credentials, in an obvious appeal to authority (logical) fallacy.
    2) Why would a PhD geneticist fail to examine both sides of the debate, and leave out the fact that there are over 1800 independent studies, from over 20 countries, from universities, medical and scientific institutes, and government food safety agencies – such as this one from Japan (a 104-Week Study into GMO safety by the wholly Japanese government’s independent Japanese Food Safety Agency) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312.
    3) If there is a mountain of evidence (and there is) for the efficacy and equivalence of GM food crops, why would the NAS need to conduct it’s own studies – simply to placate a vocal minority of uninformed but ideologically opposed (usually on religious grounds) activists? Standard scientific protocol – for the BEST study in terms of reliability – is a metastudy. A metastudy looks at ALL available research, for and against, and weighs up their validity, upon which it bases it’s conclusions. And the conclusion was that GMO’s are equivalent and represent no safety hazard.

    Actually, NOT on the contrary:

    1) The FlavrSavr was withdrawn due to low sales, based on misinformation propagated by the very Activist Group you cited. The Alliance for Bio Integrity is a fringe pseudoscience organisation that Steve Drucker set up to sell his book. It is little more than fiction aimed scare-mongering to the scientifically illiterate. Of all the FlavrSavr tomatoes sold, not a single case of disease or illness was reported by anyone who consumed them, and the chance to reduce food wastage was lost.

    2) Dr Pusztai’s study is a perfect example of how to make a study give you the results you want.
    Big claims need evidence. His research was not properly ‘peer reviewed’. When reviewed, even his own research institute questioned the results, based on how poor the study was, and the inherent biases in the study design. It’s pseudoscience.
    Even you can Google “Pusztai” and see the scandal of his shoddy study. From the link I’ve included:
    “Given the controversy raised by Dr Pusztai’s comments when he appeared on British television, the experiments were reviewed by four separate, independent bodies — the Royal Society, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Donaldson/May Report.
    Each group raised serious doubts about Dr Pusztai’s conclusions due to the lack of proper controls and they found no reason to question the safety of GM foods based on his findings.
    In addition, Dr Pusztai’s own research institute has questioned the validity of the results. According to the Director of the Rowett Institute, Phillip James, the potatoes came from one crop not two as claimed by Dr Pusztai. The same Director has outlined the experiments that were undertaken. One was performed over a 10-day period and showed a stimulated rather than a depressed immune system. It was not possible to make conclusions from the other 10-day experiment due to the variable nature of the results”
    https://www.abca.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ABCA_IssuesPaper_1_v2.pdf

    3) You obviously have NOT read the studies, but are repeating claims here by someone else. Seralini did NOT replicate the study. For a start, he used Sprague-Dawley rats (https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194). These rats SPONTANEOUSLY produce tumors at a rate approximating 50%, and a mortality of around 700 days.
    WOW!!!!! Can you believe that in Seralini’s data, about 50% of the rats developed tumors???!!! Amazing!!! Oh, and his data even actually showed (which he DIDN’T publish), that the rats in the group fed GMO feed had a LOWER mortality rate that those on organic feed. His study matched Pusztai’s for lack of scientific ethics and honesty, and Seralini’s study was funded by his own Research Group, which in turn is 100% funded by Organic Food companies.
    Unlike the Japanese study, which was not paid for by any special interest group (on either side), and found no heightened risks whatsoever.

    I’m sorry that you are unable to grasp the concept of genetics and, apparently, biology in general.

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Why not leave the plants alone the way the God has created it? Must man corrupt everything for profit?

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
      • 

        Please, demonstrate your ignorance of biology. Exactly how many plants that we eat today are as they were 6000 years ago?

        Let me help – about 10%.

        90% of the plant food we eat today has been modified by cross breeding different plant species, irradiating plants or other methods.

        Your ‘as God made them’ argument is irrelevant. None of the food we eat from plants is ‘as God made it’. If it was, most of us would have died of starvation.

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          Please demonstrate your ignorance of nature. Tampering leads to unintended consequences. Mr GMO for profit!

        • 

          Thank you for proving your ignorance.

          When was the last time your corn attacked you? Did you die the last time you ate grapefruit? Did your sweet potato give you cancer?

          We’ve been eating modified food for over 5000 years, and human life expectancy has never been higher.

          While you may have been an unintended consequence, scientific understanding and knowledge has developed exponentially over time. All possibile outcomes are tested for. The process can take as few as two years for traditional cross breeding, but more than 10 year and several generations for GM verities.

          Your fear is borne of ignorance. If you were better educated, basic science wouldn’t scare you do much,

        • 

          “We’ve been eating modified food for over 5000 years, and human life expectancy has never been higher.”

          Stop the tampering! Cross-breeding is not the same as tampering! Science is already corrupted by those with the cash to produce false reports and research. Stop the corruption. NOW!

        • 

          Do you understand that most GMO research is being done in Universities? Do you realise that much of the GMO technology is GIVEN AWAY by the universities that research them?

          Please, in your ideological blindness, explain to me what you think ‘tampering’ is?

          Because if you don’t think nature also transfers genes across species, you’re more ignorant than I thought.

        • 

          I do not realize it. Find another ignoramus to sell your lies to.

        • 

          No, as far as ignoramuses go, you take the cake.

          Google ‘sweet potato’. About 6000-8000 year ago, ‘nature’ inserted the genes from an agribacterium – creating the sweet potato we eat today.

          It is what gave scientists the idea for Bt (agribacterium) crops for natural insecticide.

        • 

          There are no archives for 6000-8000 years ago, so your claims are baseless. Besides, I trust ‘nature’ to insert genes than corrupt pay to play scientists.

        • 

          So I can add ‘doesn’t understand history’ to your long list of achievements.

          You have heard of archaeology, right? What about the pyramids? How about fossils?

          I really am genuinely sorry your education is so poor, but the fact is that biologists do know, from finding the ancestor to sweet potato preserved in ruins predating ancient Mesopotamia (>6500).
          https://www.pnas.org/content/112/18/5844.abstract
          https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/05/05/404198552/natural-gmo-sweet-potato-genetically-modified-8-000-years-ago
          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421084204.htm

          Seriously, if you can use Google you can find this stuff out for yourself.

        • 

          I have also heard about the moon and how America got there first but cannot make their own rockets to even get to the ISS. Try something else!

        • 

          So you’re a moon landing denier, too! Oh, SNAP!

          This is why you need to go back to school. You’re far too ignorant to be allowed out in public.

          Do you not remember the space shuttle? Do you not remember the budget cuts to NASA by Bush that effectively shut down both the space shuttle program and the follow on, that would have allowed the US to continue providing resupply to the ISS?

          You are the highest order of ignorant.

        • 

          Your “education” is failing you. I asked a simple question, answer it! How is it that USA keeps buying rocket enignes from russia, but they claim to have been to the moon. Even the ones who sell them the rocket engines make no such claim? Who is fooling who?

        • 

          I answered. How come you are incapable of comprehension?

          I can add that you don’t understand international politics or treaties to your long list of underachieving.

          The US keeps buying cargo space on international rockets due in part to budget cuts to NASA (due to anti-science morons like yourself). It still launches many of it’s own rockets, designed and built in the US – the next one launches tomorrow. However, launches to the ISS, as a international effort, requires cooperation.
          https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/events/events-calendar/see-a-rocket-launch

          “but they claim to have been to the moon”…And with your third-grade science education, I’m really not surprised you don’t believe man has been to the moon. Try these on for size – as it seems you’re even too thick to use Google.
          https://www.google.com/search?q=telescope+photos+of+moon+landing+sites&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip1onwx_rQAhVLF5QKHX5NBtIQsAQIIw

          But hey, facts have never been on your side, right?

        • 

          You keep believing 100% what your government tells you and all will be well with the world. After all, governments do not lie but people do.

          And for your information, “education” is not what you get from an institution of “learning”, what you get is brainwashing. Education is what you get practicing and researching relevant information on your own.

          Besides, I am sure you already know this. This software developer does not have to remind you.

        • 

          And do you realize how much money Big Ag and Big Pharma give to these universities? I am amazed that you keep calling US ignorant.

        • 

          Yes, you are.

          I spend a lot of time at my university. They receive absolutely ZERO funding for their GMO research from ‘Big Ag’ and ‘Big Pharma’, despite what you naturopath or chiropractor tell you. Neither do 95% of universities outside of the US – where most of the research I posted comes from.

          By the way, Seralini, Carmen etc actually even declare they are funded by ‘Big Organic’, but your hypocrisy means you don’t care if science that agrees with your ideology is corrupted.

        • 

          Which University is that?

        • 

          You’re quite the conspiracy theorist. I suggest taking a science class.

        • 

          You’re about as ignorant as you are opinionated and arrogant. Truly, it is YOU who needs to take a science class.

        • 

          You’re funny.

        • 

          Says the guy without a single scientific argument in this entire thread, nor even any evidence of taking a single science class in his life.

        • 

          Yes, these pro-GMO industry operative try to confuse people by saying genetic engineering is the same thing as selective breeding.

        • 

          The product is what matters, not the process of making.

        • 

          BS!

        • 

          Crossbreeding involves mixing thousands of genes in unpredictable ways. Genetic engineering usually involves precision changes to 1-3 genes. There is no argument against products of genetic engineering that cannot also be made about products of conventional breeding, which is arguably less precise.

        • 

          The less precise method is the natural way, and your splicing and dicing is playing God, give it up!

        • 

          You think it’s natural when humans take an apricot and crossbreed it with a plum to make a pluot, something never before seen in nature?

          You think it’s natural that farmed turkeys have been bred so many can’t reproduce on their own?

          Almost everything you eat is unnatural. In addition, there are plenty of natural plants that are harmful, like poison ivy and poison mushrooms.

        • 

          Yes, these things are unnatural, but at least nature was allowed to reject or allow the fusion into a new species. Why do we need humans to edit wheat genes and mix them with genes from e-coli? Would nature accept that?

        • 

          Your ignorance is only superseded by your arrogance. Be gone, troll!

        • 

          Gotta keep the echo chamber or ignorance pure, hey Bobby boy.

          I’ve given up trying to play nice with you imbeciles. No amount of evidence, even when spoon fed into your gaping mouths, will suffice to induce critical thinking skills. Your limited intellect simply means you are incapable of changing your point of view when presented by conflicting evidence – and just in case, you wont even read it lest there be some overwhelming, compelling and evidence-supported arguments.

          Not a troll. A biology major who is sick of this type of ideological nonsense pretending to be fact.

          But I’m sure you can go back to your anti-vax, climate change denying, flat earth conspiracy cave and tell your mom what a keyboard warrior you were today.

        • 

          Nope. Just have to disrupt YOUR industry funded echo chamber, confront the blatant propaganda, and call attention to your antiscience/ psuedoscientific claims.

        • 

          Oh poor Bobby boy, incapable of critical thinking, has to result to “SHILL” claims. Sorry to burst your bubble, junior.
          I’m a biology major and science educator, who doesn’t work (and has never worked) for any Biotech or Agritech company.
          If you had the smallest of science education (or, apparently, any education) and could understand at least how to research and discern facts from junk science – which you so evidently don’t – you would be at least attempting to present evidence to support your argument. Although, there isn’t actually any.

          So you just keep up your ‘Shill’ cries like a baby throwing a tantrum. It suits you.

        • 

          Yup — ready my comment above. Ir is not us that are the ignorant ones, I assure you.

        • 

          Yes, all the weight of science that doesn’t agree with you MUST be shill.
          You’d be a climate change denier, too, right?

          Everything isn’t ‘Big Pharma’ or ‘Big Ag’.

          What about the moon landings, or ‘vaccines cause autism’, or 9/11, or JFK assassination. I’m sure you have a few more conspiracy theories you subscribe to.

        • 

          Guess you would like for us to believe that hybridization and genetic modification are one in the same? Good luck with that one. You guys have been trying to push that fallacy for years. It won’t work.

        • 

          It’s very apparent that your understanding of GE wouldn’t fill the back of a matchbook. Unlike you, I’m educated in biology, not driven by ideology.

          If I thought you’d care, let alone understand it, I would explain it to you.

        • 

          You are guilty of abusive use of language or the use of language with the intention to insult as argument. This is fallacious in argument or discuss. It is the mark of ignorance or agency for Monsanto and others.

          Anne asked for the name of the university where you, as you claimed, “spend a lot of time. They receive absolutely ZERO funding for their GMO research from ‘Big Ag’ and ‘Big Pharma’s” and you presented NONE. She asked for the difference between hybridisation and genetic modification as evidence that you know what you are presenting to the public, as proof that they are the same and, hence, that foods based on genetic modification are as safe as foods based on hybridisation and you present NONE.

          By the way, what do you spend the time you claim you spend at the university for? Have you carried out any safety study of any GM food? Have you collaborated with other people or someone? Has the university carried out any? Present evidence if you, a group you belong to, or the university has carried out any safety experiment with any GM food. I mean by evidence, full report and peer review. I am sure that Anne—and other people who have been reading our arguments on the content of the article by Ify—will be interested in these.

    • 

      “It appears that you also have no scientific understanding, but an ideological imperative”. NONSENSICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Produce evidence of discredit by independent scientists fro around the world. What is the basis legitimacy test that it failed?

      This matter, the violation of natural order and laws of plants and animals through genetic RE-engineering, requires commonsense and not rigorous intellectualisation or research. You lack the commonsense or have sold it for some dollars .

      Provide evidence of the “LOTS OF TRIALS AND INVESTIGATIONS” by the Academy of Sciences Worldwide, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), World Health Organisation (WHO) if they truly exist.

      Should the Academy of Sciences worldwide tell us what to eat and drink and what not to eat and drink as sovereign, independent and free people? Why was Nigerian Academy of Science established if it relies on the Academy of Sciences Worldwide as a practice and rule and WILL NOT carry out independent research or safety study?

      When did UNESCO become a food safety-researching organisation?

      You evidence ignorance of the fact that WHO relies on Codex Allimentarious for information about GMOs and GM foods and that Codex relies on GMO-producing companies for the information that it gives WHO and the public. You also evidence ignorance of the fact about how Codex was established and why? Read these up from the internet.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
      • 

        I did, but apparently you’re better at posting walls of text than reading comprehension.
        I posted 40+ links for you, knowing full well that your anti-GMO ideology has inhibited your ability to rationalise or think logically.

        Your total ignorance of science and the scientific method should embarrass you.

        Please, before responding, try READING my post where I already answered your moronic questions.

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    table { }td { padding-top: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-left: 1px; color: windowtext; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; vertical-align: bottom; border: medium none; white-space: nowrap; }.xl64 { font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; }.xl65 { color: blue; font-size: 11pt; text-decoration: underline; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; }.xl66 { font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; text-align: center; }.xl67 { color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; }.xl68 { font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; }.xl69 { font-size: 11pt; font-weight: 700; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; text-align: center; }.xl70 { font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; white-space: normal; }.xl71 { color: blue; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: underline; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; }.xl72 { font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri; }

    Lead
    Author
    Hyperlink
    Year

    Institution: (G) Government; (U)
    University
    Publication

    Devare, M
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071707001095
    2006
    U
    Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, New
    York
    Soil Biology and Biochemistry

    Bartheau, Y
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19123817
    2009
    G
    Agence Française de Sécurité
    Sanitaire des Aliments, Laboratoire d’Etudes et de Recherches sur la Qualité
    des Aliments et les Procédés Agro-Alimentaires
    Journal of Agriculature and Food Chemistry

    Onose, J
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18381229
    2008
    G
    Division of Pathology, National Institute of Health Sciences,
    Japan
    Food & Chemical Toxicology

    Kroghsbo, S
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18215453
    2008
    U
    Department of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, National Food
    Institute, Technical University of Denmark
    Toxicology

    Ma, BL
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21722080
    2011
    G
    Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, Agriculture and
    Agri-Food Canada, Ontario
    Journal of Environmental Science and Health B

    Wiedemann, S
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933942
    2007
    U
    Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, University
    of Bern, Switzerland
    Applied Environmental Biology

    Beckles, DM
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22515236
    2012
    U
    Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis
    Journal of Food Science

    Batista, R
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17496424
    2007
    G
    Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge, Portugal
    International Archives of Allergy and Immunology

    Adel-Patient, K
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21298004
    2011
    G
    Unité d’Immuno-Allergie Alimentaire, France
    PLoS ONE

    Buzoianu, SG
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097397
    2013
    G
    Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Ireland
    Journal of Animal Science

    Liu, P
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22709787
    2012
    U
    College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China
    Agricultural University
    Food & Chemical Toxicology

    Buzoianu, SG
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22574106
    2012
    G
    Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Ireland
    PLoS ONE

    Fermin, G
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21819140
    2011
    G
    USDA-ARS-Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hawaii
    Journal of Agriculature and Food Chemistry

    Gruber, H
    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf200854n
    2011
    G
    Institute for Crop Science and Plant Breeding, Bavarian State
    Research Center for Agriculture
    Journal of Agriculature and Food Chemistry

    Gu, J
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23182224
    2013
    U
    Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Aquaculture Protein
    Centre, Norway
    British Journal of Nutrition

    Sissener, NH
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21418706
    2011
    G
    National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research, Norway
    British Journal of Nutrition

    Walsh, MC
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23168255
    2013
    G
    Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Ireland
    British Journal of Nutrition

    Walsh, MC
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22574138
    2012
    G
    Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Ireland
    PLoS ONE

    Misra, A
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22743705
    2012
    G
    CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research
    GM crops & food

    Qin, F
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22324875
    2012
    U
    Department of Bioengineering, College of Food Science, South
    China Agricultural University, China
    Journal of Agriculature and Food Chemistry

    Faust, M
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18024763
    2007
    U
    Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University
    Journal of Dairy Science

    Jacobs, CM
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18281573
    2008
    U
    Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois
    Poultry Science

    Sakamoto, Y
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787312
    2008
    G
    Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology, Tokyo
    Metropolitan Institute of Public Health, Japan
    Food Hygiene and Safety Science

    Trabalza-Marinucci, M
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141307002442
    2008
    U
    Diagnostica e Clinica Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di
    Perugia, & Università degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo”, Italy
    Livestock Science

    Daleprane, JB
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19011971
    2009
    U
    Dept. of Nutrition and Dietetics, College of Nutrition,
    Federal Fluminense University, Brazil
    Plant Foods and Human Nutrition

    Stein, HH
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19098236
    2009
    U
    Department of Animal and Range Sciences, South Dakota State
    University, Brookings
    Journal of Animal Science

    Steinke, K
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20579187
    2010
    U
    Animal Nutrition Weihenstephan, Technical University of
    Munich, Germany
    Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition

    Yonemochi, C
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20163679
    2010
    G
    Japan Scientific Feeds Association
    Animal Science Journal

    Brouk, MJ
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21426987
    2011
    U
    Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, 134 Call Hall,
    Kansas State University, Manhattan
    Journal of Dairy Science

    Randhawa, GJ
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21078358
    2011
    G
    National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Pusa Campus, India
    Food & Chemical Toxicology

    Fonesca, C
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270010
    2012
    G
    National Institute of Health, Portugal
    Journal of Proteomics

    Zhu, Y
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000447
    2013
    U
    College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China
    Agricultural University, Beijing, China
    Food & Chemical Toxicology

    Bonadei, M
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19833075
    2009
    U
    Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, Università di Pavia,
    Pavia, Italy
    Environmental Biosafety Research

    Devos, Y
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22576225
    2012
    G
    European Food Safety Authority, Italy
    Transgenic Research

    Cortet, J
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003140560700025X
    2007
    U
    Institut National Polytechnique
    de Lorraine (France); Université Saint Jérôme (France); University of Aarhus
    (Denmark); Jožef Stefan Institute (Slovenia); Scottish Crop Research
    Institute (UK)
    Pedobilogia

    Mulder, C
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17626475
    2007
    G
    National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, The
    Netherlands
    Ambio

    D’Angelo-Picard, C
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21315818
    2011
    G
    Institut des Sciences Du Vegetal, France
    Research in Microbiology

    Buzoianu, SG
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22467509
    2012
    G
    Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Ireland
    Applied Environmental Microbiology

    Sartowska, KE
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26475068
    2015
    U
    Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland
    Poultry Science

    Reiner, D
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25084284
    2014
    U
    Medical University of Vienna, Austria
    PLoS ONE

    Zeljenkova, D
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25270621
    2014
    U
    Slovak Medical University, Slovakia
    Archives of Toxicology

    Gu, J
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24923786
    2014
    U
    Aquaculture Protein Centre, Norwegian School of Veterinary
    Science, University of Life Sciences, Norway
    PLoS ONE

    Matusiewicz, M
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26110393
    2015
    U
    Department of Animal Nutrition and Biotechnology, Faculty of
    Animal Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences
    International Journal of Molecular Science

    Chang, ET
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015139
    2016
    U
    Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Research and
    Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford
    Journal of Environmental Science and Health

    Kier, LD
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25687244
    2016
    U
    Private Consultant (Review)
    Critical Reviews in Toxicology

    Ujszequi, J
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25378294
    2015
    U
    Plant Protection Institute, Centre for Agricultural Research,
    Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
    Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry

    Williams, GM
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10854122
    2000
    U
    Department of Pathology, New York Medical College
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

    Williams, AL
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22202229
    2012
    U
    Exponent, Inc
    Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health

    Mink, PJ
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21798302
    2011
    U
    Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health,
    Emory University, Atlanta GA
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

    Mink, PJ
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22683395
    2012
    U
    Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health,
    Emory University, Atlanta GA
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

    Snell, C
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
    2011
    U
    School of Biological Studies, University of Nottingham, UK and
    AgroParis Tech (University), Paris, France.
    Food and Chemical Toxicology

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      A conference paper is necessary for me to reply to your references. As that is not possible because I do not have a lot of time for this, I say that your references are bogus, provided by promoters and defenders of GMOs and GM foods for financial, commercial and political reasons, have no evidence of repeat of study by independent experts, in most cases lack peer review, and are unworthy of note or serious consideration.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
      • 

        You are correct. He is an industry spokesperson.

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          No, Rob. Not everyone with an actual education in the topic you so obviously don’t understand is a ‘shill’ or industry spokesman.
          Are you a Big Organic SHILL? Or just an educationally-deficient schoolyard bully who gets off on being a keyboard warrior, just calling everyone else names?
          Either way, your a sad excuse for a human.

        • 

          Not everyone with actual education on the topic is “a ‘shill’ or industry spokesman”.

          VERY RIGHT.

          But no one who knows the only remaining issue—is GM food safe or not safe?—–who is knowledgeable about the method of developing GMOs and has read safety experiment reports with GMOs and GM foods by both sides, will argue that GM foods are safe for consumption, because there is no evidence from either side in support of this.

          Only the people who are paid to sell falsehood have the boldness to lie that GM foods are safe or “as safe as conventional foods”.

        • 

          Logical fallacy, once again.

          You make this claim because you refuse to read any of the mountains of research, presented by NON-BIASED, NON-INDUSTRY researchers – such as the swathe I supplied you – that it doesn’t exist?

          There is plenty of evidence. There is PLENTY of evidence. If you were really, HONESTLY interested, you would go to your local university and get a biology student to show you. Or any of the biologists, geneticists, or biochemists. It’s all there. Just because you REFUSE to see it does NOT mean it doesn’t exist.

          Closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “La la la it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist” is your argument?

          Nice.

          Fraud.

      • 

        So once again, any research – whether independent or otherwise – that contradicts your ideologically held paradigm, is apparently ‘bogus’?

        You claim to be some type of science writer, yet you clearly do not understand the first thing about science, the scientific method, or research.

        Unlike you, I HAVE read every single paper (there are, in total, about 16 currently published in predatory journals) that claims harm from GMO or GMO-related pesticides.

        That is how you undertake a critical analysis. You look thoroughly at BOTH sides of the argument, weighing up some rather simple factors, such as ‘is the study sound (i.e. decent population, non-biased design, does it comply with scientific standards)’, ‘is the data repeatable’, and ‘does the data presented justify the conclusions’.

        Every one I provided you is. And I’ve even added – ‘Is the research FREE from industry funding or association’ – to ENSURE not one presented to you was tainted by your bogey-man ‘Monsanto’.

        Your ignorance goes SO deep, that you failed to even notice that at LEAST TWO of those studies were in fact REPEATED studies, by separate, independent agencies in DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.

        Every single one is peer reviewed and ALL were published in MAJOR REPUTABLE JOURNALS.

        But you don’t want to know any of this, because it contradicts a ‘belief’ you hold like a religion, despite all the evidence, and your too sanctimonious and narcissistic to entertain the thought you may be incorrect.

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          First, my fundamental and overriding argument is that there is NO agreement between the people who argue for the consumption of GM foods and the people who argue against this position that any GM food is safe. This is not, contrary to your claim, “your (my) ideologically held paradigm”. It is a FACT. If it is not a fact present the agreement that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals between the opposing parties.

          You also claim that I do not understand “the scientific method, or research”. Is this BASIC method right: Foreign DNAs and genes are transferred into the genomes of plant and animal sources of foods intended to be “modified” (RE-engineered) or “improved” (poisoned) using a bacterium, virus and gene gun. At least four other foreign genes are introduced along with a target gene to make achievement of desired result possible. The target gene codes for a desirable food characteristic. It is believed that it will transfer this characteristic to the plant or animal source of food WITHOUT ANY EFFECT. Note the emphasis!!!! However, this is, contrary to the assumption, one of the sources of the problems associated with the research. Is this BRIEF right, or it is wrong?

          Concerning “the first thing about science”, tell the public what this is and how you have observed it or shown that you know it in your arguments.

          Present the “every single paper (… in total, about 16 currently published in predatory journals) that claims harm from GMO or GMO-related pesticides” and proof that they are wrong or present repeat research papers that show that they are wrong.

          Here I give you just three papers—I believe that they are standard papers—to consider as proof that I am NOT biased against GM foods but, rather, holistic and objective and, like a true scientist, interested in and insistent on FACT or evidence that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals, as a condition for their continued production and sale.

          1). Refer to USFDA paper on Flavr Savr—the first GM food, tomato. What did it reveal? Why did Alliance for BioIntegrity go to court? What did the action reveal?

          2). Present paper for A.Pusztai and SWB Ewen, 1999, and report of six Lancet investigators. Present any repeat paper that shows that their findings are wrong. Why did Prof. Philip James, Director for Rowett Research Institute at the time, who approved Puszatai’s research results and gave him leave to speak at television interview change his stand within 24 hours after Pusztai’s appearance at the interview? Why were his papers confiscated, not released to the public so that the experts can decide on it?

          2). Present paper by Monsanto’s researchers on its GM corn NK603 and glyphosate v. Seralini et al for the same research.

          About your claims about publications and peer reviews that show GM foods are safe, I hold that Domingo et al—–many claims, very few facts—applies, and NO fact to your claim.

        • 

          Your ‘fundamental argument’ is a straw man. Whoever said that those who agree (the majority of associated sciences) and those who disagree (uniformed activists) “Don’t agree”? The fact that you disagree vehemently on a topic of which you have limited, confirmation-bias reinforced understanding and for which you dismiss or refuse to read the volumes of positive research despite its independence is what confirms your views are ideologically, not logically, based.

          “Hence or otherwise, show why there are still opposing views on GM foods status, demands for withdrawal of GMOs and GM foods, withdrawals in some countries, and demands for labelling of GM foods in the USA.”
          – Opposing views exists because uneducated, pro-naturalists get their information from fake-news and pseudoscience web sites, then employ confirmation bias rather than critical thinking to reinforce those views and offhandedly dismiss the mountain of evidence that contradicts their view. They are no better than anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers.

          Thank you for demonstrating you do not understand the scientific method (Google it).

          “Is this BASIC method right: Foreign DNAs and genes are transferred into the genomes of plant and animal sources of foods intended to be “modified” (RE-engineered) or “improved” (poisoned) using a bacterium, virus and gene gun. At least four other foreign genes are introduced along with a target gene to make achievement of desired result possible. The target gene codes for a desirable food characteristic. It is believed that it will transfer this characteristic to the plant or animal source of food WITHOUT ANY EFFECT. Note the emphasis!!!! However, this is, contrary to the assumption, one of the sources of the problems associated with the research. Is this BRIEF right, or it is wrong?”

          It’s wrong.

          “Foreign DNAs” – no, most GMOs are modified with traits that could have eventually been achieved through selective crossbreeding and irradiation techniques, however this may have taken 50+ years, with far more unintended side effects.
          “to be “modified” (RE-engineered) or “improved” (poisoned) using a bacterium, virus and gene gun” – no, bacteria and viruses are not used to modify or improve any DNA. DNA is cut using restriction enzymes that are naturally occurring in every living thing to fight viruses. They are ‘coded’ to recognise a certain sequence of genes in the genome as the target and accurately ‘cut’ for recombination. Recombinant DNA (rDNA) is produced via a series of methods, most often phage (or occasionally non-bacterial transformation).
          https://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotech-Environ/Projects00/rdna/rdna.html
          As for ‘poisoned’, what exactly do you think happens in the DNA? Do you even understand the basics of what DNA is or does?
          “At least four other foreign genes are introduced” – really? Where did you read that one? CRISPR technology does no such thing, however in generating recombinant DNA, the genes either side of the required trait may be introduced, but not before they are confirmed through YEARS of mapping and testing to be either the same as the base DNA in function, or to provide no adverse outcomes to the function, of the required traits.
          “It is believed that it will transfer this characteristic to the plant or animal source of food WITHOUT ANY EFFECT” – no, sorry, your confusing your belief-based ideology with science. The effect of the introduced genes is thoroughly tested, for several years, to ensure that there is no unintended effect. Compare that to crossbreeding, where the genetic recombination is effectively a lottery, and where no testing is done for side-effect, and where, in the past, unintended side effects have led to actual (not imagined) health impacts on humans consuming them.

          Next.

          “You clearly don’t know the first thing about science”. You’ve proven you do not even know what the ‘scientific method’ is by your response. You’ve proven, time and again, that you refuse to examine evidence that irrevocably contradicts your paradigm. The FIRST thing a scientist learns is critical thinking – that you must critically, without bias, examine BOTH sides of an argument, before coming to a position based on the weight and validity of evidence. I HAVE done this. I HAVE read both sides. You have not, and refuse to.
          Dismissing all the evidence I have presented thus far without reading it by claiming it’s all ‘paid for’ PROVES you are an intellectual FRAUD.

          Repeating, over and over, the points I’ve disproven with evidence reinforces this.

          You ask me to provide and disprove the few papers that support your ideology, yet even if I did, you would dismiss any counterarguments offhanded, and not investigate. This is intellectual dishonesty. If YOU had even read any of the research papers you claim to support your ideology (Please, let me know ONE you have actually read), and had any science understanding, you yourself would be able to tell me what was wrong with the research. But you haven’t and you can’t.

          But let me help you with the three (I’ve already addressed, but will do again)>
          1) Please include a link to the FDA ‘paper’ on the Flavr Savr. I don’t even understand what you are trying to claim here? The FDA found no issues with the tomato, and the Alliance for BioIntegrity launched a FAILED nuisance suit because they are similarly ignorant activists who don’t even understand the difference between a bacteria and virus, let alone what DNA is. But another intellectually dishonest argument (to authority) by trying to represent them as some type of legitimate authority.
          2) Pusztai’s research is fundamentally flawed. His director approved his research before Pusztai’s ideological imperative was noted. Once he realised that his research was simply a stacked study to ‘find’ what he personally wanted to find, not to actually see where the evidence led him (please, Google ‘scientific method’), he reviewed his study and then noted the poor study design.
          Let me give you a SIMPLE analogy. If I wanted to ‘prove’ something with a study, it is VERY simple to do so – it is the same way pollsters can stack poll results by asking loaded questions. I would start with what I wanted to find, then stack the study so that what I wanted to see was evident. I could PROVE that flying gave you the flu if I only included people who flew during flu season, in the midst of an outbreak, and who flew on aircraft where at least several of the passengers were already contagious.
          Pusztai has done the same in his study. Even Wikipedia has a good breakdown of his nonsense. And no, his papers were never ‘confiscated’. They were discredited, and he withdrew them. I’m sure you could find them if you actually wanted to.
          My initial link to his discredited study spelled this out for you, but for the fact you don’t understand the difference between actual science and ideologically-driven pseudoscience.
          3) You made the claim that Monsanto’s researchers did the same study. Therefore YOU present the proof. It is not up to me to validate YOUR claim. Again, that’s not how either evidence or science works. I am only aware of the 90-day rat studies done by Monsanto (that I have read), which is the global science standard for rat feeding studies.
          Please, YOU made the claim, clearly out of ignorance, that ‘Seralini repeated the Monsanto study’. YOU PROVE IT.

          Lastly, laughingly, you prove, again, your bias and that you haven’t even attempted to read as single link I provided supporting GMO safety. Offhanded dismissal. Intellectually dishonest.

          You are a science-ignorant, ideologically-driven, intellectually dishonest FRAUD.

        • 

          First, my fundamental and overriding argument is that there is NO agreement between the people who argue for the consumption of GM foods and the people who argue against this position. This is not, contrary to your claim, “your (my) ideologically held paradigm”. It is a FACT. If it is not a fact present the agreement between them; that is, agreement that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals between the opposing parties.

          Hence or otherwise, show why there are still opposing views on GM foods status, demands for withdrawal of GMOs and GM foods, withdrawals in some countries, and demands for labelling of GM foods in the USA.

          You also claim that I do not understand “the scientific method, or research”. Is this BASIC method right: Foreign DNAs and genes are transferred into the genomes of plant and animal sources of foods intended to be “modified” (RE-engineered) or “improved” (poisoned) using a bacterium, virus and gene gun. At least four other foreign genes are introduced along with a target gene to make achievement of desired result possible. The target gene codes for a desirable food characteristic. It is believed that it will transfer this characteristic to the plant or animal source of food WITHOUT ANY EFFECT. Note the emphasis!!!! However, this is, contrary to the assumption, one of the sources of the problems associated with the research. Is this BRIEF right, or it is wrong?

          Concerning “the first thing about science”, tell the public what this is and how you have observed it or shown that you know it in your arguments.

          Present the “every single paper (… in total, about 16 currently published in predatory journals) that claims harm from GMO or GMO-related pesticides” and proof that they are wrong or present repeat research papers that show that they are wrong.

          Here I give you just three papers—I believe that they are standard papers—to consider as proof that I am NOT biased against GM foods but, rather, holistic and objective and, like a true scientist, interested in and insistent on FACT or evidence that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals, as a condition for their continued production and sale.

          1). Refer to USFDA paper on Flavr Savr—the first GM food, tomato. What did it reveal? Why did Alliance for BioIntegrity go to court? What did the action reveal?

          2). Present paper for A.Pusztai and SWB Ewen, 1999, and report of six Lancet investigators. Present any repeat paper that shows that their findings are wrong. Why did Prof. Philip James, Director for Rowett Research Institute at the time, who approved Puszatai’s research results and gave him leave to speak at television interview change his stand within 24 hours after Pusztai’s appearance at the interview? Why were his papers confiscated, not released to the public so that the experts can decide on it?

          2). Present paper by Monsanto’s researchers on its GM corn NK603 and glyphosate v. Seralini et al for the same research.

          About your claims about publications and peer reviews that show GM foods are safe, I hold that Domingo et al—–many claims, very few facts—applies, and NO fact to your claim.

        • 

          First, my fundamental and overriding argument is that there is NO agreement between the people who argue for the consumption of GM foods and the people who argue against this position. This is not, contrary to your claim, “your (my) ideologically held paradigm”. It is a FACT. If it is not a fact present the agreement between them; that is, agreement that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals between the opposing parties.

          Hence or otherwise, show why there are still opposing views on GM foods status, demands for withdrawal of GMOs and GM foods, withdrawals in some countries, and demands for labelling of GM foods in the USA.

          You also claim that I do not understand “the scientific method, or research”. Is this BASIC method right: Foreign DNAs and genes are transferred into the genomes of plant and animal sources of foods intended to be “modified” (RE-engineered) or “improved” (poisoned) using a bacterium, virus and gene gun. At least four other foreign genes are introduced along with a target gene to make achievement of desired result possible. The target gene codes for a desirable food characteristic. It is believed that it will transfer this characteristic to the plant or animal source of food WITHOUT ANY EFFECT. Note the emphasis!!!! However, this is, contrary to the assumption, one of the sources of the problems associated with the research. Is this BRIEF right, or it is wrong?

          Concerning “the first thing about science”, tell the public what this is and how you have observed it or shown that you know it in your arguments.

          Present the “every single paper (… in total, about 16 currently published in predatory journals) that claims harm from GMO or GMO-related pesticides” and proof that they are wrong or present repeat research papers that show that they are wrong.

          Here I give you just three papers—I believe that they are standard papers—to consider as proof that I am NOT biased against GM foods but, rather, holistic and objective and, like a true scientist, interested in and insistent on FACT or evidence that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals, as a condition for their continued production and sale.

          1). Refer to USFDA paper on Flavr Savr—the first GM food, tomato. What did it reveal? Why did Alliance for BioIntegrity go to court? What did the action reveal?

          2). Present paper for A.Pusztai and SWB Ewen, 1999, and report of six Lancet investigators. Present any repeat paper that shows that their findings are wrong. Why did Prof. Philip James, Director for Rowett Research Institute at the time, who approved Puszatai’s research results and gave him leave to speak at television interview change his stand within 24 hours after Pusztai’s appearance at the interview? Why were his papers confiscated, not released to the public so that the experts can decide on it?

          2). Present paper by Monsanto’s researchers on its GM corn NK603 and glyphosate v. Seralini et al for the same research.

          About your claims about publications and peer reviews that show GM foods are safe, I hold that Domingo et al—–many claims, very few facts—applies, and NO fact to your claim.

        • 

          I posted response to this view four times and each was removed, WHY?

        • 

          I can’t remove your replies.

        • 

          First, my fundamental and overriding argument is that there is NO agreement between the people who argue for the consumption of GM foods and the people who argue against this position. This is not, contrary to your claim, “your (my) ideologically held paradigm”. It is a FACT. If it is not a fact present the agreement between them; that is, agreement that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals between the opposing parties.

          Hence or otherwise, show why there are still opposing views on GM foods status, demands for withdrawal of GMOs and GM foods, withdrawals in some countries, and demands for labelling of GM foods in the USA.

          You also claim that I do not understand “the scientific method, or research”. Is this BASIC method right: Foreign DNAs and genes are transferred into the genomes of plant and animal sources of foods intended to be “modified” (RE-engineered) or “improved” (poisoned) using a bacterium, virus and gene gun. At least four other foreign genes are introduced along with a target gene to make achievement of desired result possible. The target gene codes for a desirable food characteristic. It is believed that it will transfer this characteristic to the plant or animal source of food WITHOUT ANY EFFECT. Note the emphasis!!!! However, this is, contrary to the assumption, one of the sources of the problems associated with the research. Is this BRIEF right, or it is wrong?

          Concerning “the first thing about science”, tell the public what this is and how you have observed it or shown that you know it in your arguments.

          Present the “every single paper (… in total, about 16 currently published in predatory journals) that claims harm from GMO or GMO-related pesticides” and proof that they are wrong or present repeat research papers that show that they are wrong.

          Here I give you just three papers—I believe that they are standard papers—to consider as proof that I am NOT biased against GM foods but, rather, holistic and objective and, like a true scientist, interested in and insistent on FACT or evidence that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals, as a condition for their continued production and sale.

          1). Refer to USFDA paper on Flavr Savr—the first GM food, tomato. What did it reveal? Why did Alliance for BioIntegrity go to court? What did the action reveal?

          2). Present paper for A.Pusztai and SWB Ewen, 1999, and report of six Lancet investigators. Present any repeat paper that shows that their findings are wrong. Why did Prof. Philip James, Director for Rowett Research Institute at the time, who approved Puszatai’s research results and gave him leave to speak at television interview change his stand within 24 hours after Pusztai’s appearance at the interview? Why were his papers confiscated, not released to the public so that the experts can decide on it?

          2). Present paper by Monsanto’s researchers on its GM corn NK603 and glyphosate v. Seralini et al for the same research.

          About your claims about publications and peer reviews that show GM foods are safe, I hold that Domingo et al—–many claims, very few facts—applies, and NO fact to your claim.

        • 

          First, my fundamental and overriding argument is that there is NO agreement between the people who argue for the consumption of GM foods and the people who argue against this position. This is not, contrary to your claim, “your (my) ideologically held paradigm”. It is a FACT. If it is not a fact present the agreement between them; that is, agreement that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals between the opposing parties.

          Hence or otherwise, show why there are still opposing views on GM foods status, demands for withdrawal of GMOs and GM foods, withdrawals in some countries, and demands for labelling of GM foods in the USA.

          You also claim that I do not understand “the scientific method, or research”. Is this BASIC method right: Foreign DNAs and genes are transferred into the genomes of plant and animal sources of foods intended to be “modified” (RE-engineered) or “improved” (poisoned) using a bacterium, virus and gene gun. At least four other foreign genes are introduced along with a target gene to make achievement of desired result possible. The target gene codes for a desirable food characteristic. It is believed that it will transfer this characteristic to the plant or animal source of food WITHOUT ANY EFFECT. Note the emphasis!!!! However, this is, contrary to the assumption, one of the sources of the problems associated with the research. Is this BRIEF right, or it is wrong?

          Concerning “the first thing about science”, tell the public what this is and how you have observed it or shown that you know it in your arguments.

          Present the “every single paper (… in total, about 16 currently published in predatory journals) that claims harm from GMO or GMO-related pesticides” and proof that they are wrong or present repeat research papers that show that they are wrong.

          Here I give you just three papers—I believe that they are standard papers—to consider as proof that I am NOT biased against GM foods but, rather, holistic and objective and, like a true scientist, interested in and insistent on FACT or evidence that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals, as a condition for their continued production and sale.

          1). Refer to USFDA paper on Flavr Savr—the first GM food, tomato. What did it reveal? Why did Alliance for BioIntegrity go to court? What did the action reveal?

          2). Present paper for A.Pusztai and SWB Ewen, 1999, and report of six Lancet investigators. Present any repeat paper that shows that their findings are wrong. Why did Prof. Philip James, Director for Rowett Research Institute at the time, who approved Puszatai’s research results and gave him leave to speak at television interview change his stand within 24 hours after Pusztai’s appearance at the interview? Why were his papers confiscated, not released to the public so that the experts can decide on it?

          3). Present paper by Monsanto’s researchers on its GM corn NK603 and glyphosate v. Seralini et al for the same research.

          About your claims about publications and peer reviews that show GM foods are safe, I hold that Domingo et al—–many claims, very few facts—applies, and NO fact to your claim.

    • 

      right out of the Monsnato database.. BS

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    Prince Awele Odor – you have silenced the wicked who are bent on killing the population of this country buy collecting dollars from wicked producers of GMOs abroad. Any one saying anything else is the devil’s advocate. I have been saying it that we are yet to attain the stage to even attempt those foods in the country due to the carelessness and negligence attitude to health and safety in the country. God Bless you Prince.

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      My Dear Brother, Bako,

      Thanks.

      My worry is that Nigerians who make decision for us lack the most basic necessities for making decision on this matter namely, commonsense, independent thinking, critical review of what is presented or independent verification of results of study claimed, nationalism, and patriotism. Do they values for food safety and human life?

      I note that MOST other Nigerians are ignorant about the issues because they have not inquired about the method of developing GMOs, applied common sense to differences in size, taste, texture, and spoil time of the things that we eat and drink, and to why there has been increasing cancers, kidney, liver and heart diseases and deaths due to these.

      The author of the article being discussed raised a very disappointing and worrisome fact: The Nigerian Academy of Science (NAS), the highest body on theoretical and applied science, the body that is recognised as composed of the best brains and researchers, has NOT carried out any independent safety study of any GM food—-NOT EVEN ONE. It approved their consumption for Nigerians by relying on the claims of our political enemies, people interested only in the commerce of it, the profits and wealth it brings them, and the political lords it makes them, and racists who hold the fixed ideological view that Africans are of inferior ontological status and dignity, made for therm to use and civilise and, therefore, expendable.

      I know that what she wrote is right because some years ago, I wrote the body and presented to it FACTS—-being safety results of ACTUAL researchers who have studied the safety of GM foods and whose results have not been shown to be wrong by the opposite side—-not mere claims and declarations by the companies involved and the organisations and individuals that promote the criminality. I pleaded that independent safety study should be carried out by it. I got no refutation of the facts. I was promised that when action is taken what I presented will be taken into consideration. There is no evidence that it has done so.

      About the debate, the fundamental and absolute necessities are that there must be proof that GM foods are safe for consumption—NOT dependance on “substantial equivalence” (SE) of “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS)—-and the parties to the debate must accept the proof. These are not there. Therefore, why give, recommend or defend GM foods?

      The opposite side specialises in rejecting factual experimental results, bribing and threatening against their publication, bribing organisations and individual experts to present false experimental results or experimental results while no safety study was carried out by them, abusing the people who speak the fact, and using propaganda to deceive the public to accept their views. They produce NO study by them that shows that GM foods are safe or repeat of what they condemn to show that their condemnation is right and the experiment wrong. One of their deceits is the claim that No effect has been found (or shown) associated with GM foods while they should find out if they express no effect and show the public that they express no effect.

      I wish that a real and free forum will be organised for discussing this matter and not this very limited and controlled forum.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
• 

  You seriously put a tomato with a syringe photo at the beginning of your story when you know full well no such activity is used to genetically engineer crops, no GE tomatoes exist on the market and such photos generate fear not educate. SHAME on you for once again demonstrating your lack of journalism ethics on this topic.

  Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    As a contributor to newspaper publications on issues concerning GMOs and GM foods, I have never represented the method of carrying out the technology with any image. This has always been done by the newspapers. There is absolutely no doubt that the representation was done by the newspaper and not by the author. Moreover, the imagery is global practice. It can be found in the internet. Therefore SHAME on you. Provide the right representation of the method of the technology in order to erase the shame.

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Robert Wager is a pro-GMO activist and spokesperson who spreads antiscience misinformation on behalf of the agrochemical industry. He is not to be trusted of believed.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    How did you come to the conclusion that there is no GE tomato in the market? Please defend the assertion.

    On information criminally interpreted as generation of fear by you, if fear will make people to reject GM food, very good because it will save lives and protect health by making people avoid GM foods. Obviously you would rather people have no warning sign for GM foods. Would you say also that labelling GM foods creates fear or informs?

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Google it you moron. There hasn’t been a GMO Tomato on the market since the FlavrSavr was removed thanks to ignorant, sanctimonious activists like you scared the general population with lies and scaremongering.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
      • 

        Terry, my question and demand, intended for RobertWager are contained in: “How did you come to the conclusion that there is no GE tomato in the market? Please defend the assertion”.

        The questions is clear. The demand follows the question.

        You wrote: “There hasn’t been a GMO Tomato on the market since the FlavrSavr was removed”. This is, obviously, NOT an answer to the question “How did you come to the conclusion that there is no GE tomato in the market?”. You also wrote: “thanks to ignorant, sanctimonious activists like you scared the general population with lies and scaremongering”. This, also obviously, does not provide the proof that there is no GM food in the market demanded

        You should know that I am not a moron because you PRECIPITATED that abuse word. You do not have to learn to be refined in your use of language, especially in a forum like this, if you think you are perceived as intelligent or refined.

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          Yes, perhaps ‘moron’ is not entirely accurate. You are an intellectually dishonest fraud.

          You clearly (and demonstrably) have no education in any related field of science, because you cannot even explain the scientific method, nor the actual methods of GE.

          You consistently engage with ad populum (appeal to the masses) and appeal to authority logical fallacies.

          You consistently and offhandedly dismiss any evidence that contradicts your ideological perspective without reading or even attempting to understand it.

          You consistently provide straw man and false flag arguments, using bait-and-switch tactics and loop-back arguments, without acknowledging (or even attempting to understand) the evidence that clearly negates each argument you have presented.

          You continually make unverified claims, then when called on your claim, ask the caller to ‘prove the negative’ (another intellectually dishonest, illogical and unscientific argument).

          So, let’s start.

          IF YOU CLAIM that there ARE GE tomatoes currently available, please provide the evidence. It was YOUR claim. You have to prove it.

          You are little more than a fraud.

  • 

    GMO operative again ..up votged by his buddies and sock puppets

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Yes, everyone smarter than you is obviously a ‘shill’.
      Schoolyard bully tactics when you don’t actually have evidence to support your argument.

      “Keep the echo chamber of stupidity clear of facts, everyone! Can’t have any of those actual science people in here!”

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    Robert Wager is a well known pro-GMO activist and spokesperson. He has been trolling social media articles for many years in order to promote and defend the agrochemical industry. He spreads misinformation and pseudoscience on behalf of these corporations. Do not believe a word this antiscience, charlatan says.

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
• 

  Everyone interested in this subject should read the European Academies Science Advisory Council 2013 report- Planting the Future if they want to know what the real says on this issue. (free on-line)

  Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    What this author considers the most necessary, important or relevant statement in that report is:

    “The production of more food, more sustainably, requires the development of crops that can make better use of limited resources. Agricultural innovation can capitalise on the rapid pace of advance in functional genomics research and it is unwise to exclude any technology a priori for ideological reasons. Sustainable agricultural production and food security must harness the potential of biotechnology in all its facets”.

    This statement, it should be noted, says NOTHING about ensuring the safety of foods generally and sustaining this. Take note that this is the issue left to be resolved in order that ALL nations and people will accept GM foods.

    What does it profit any nation to produce “more food, more sustainably” by developing “crops that make better use of limited resources” through “agricultural innovation”, ensuring “not to exclude any technology a priori for ideological reasons”, IF what are produced and are called “foods” are really substances that look like food but in their molecules, hidden from mere human eyes, are toxins, allergens, carcinogens and immunogens which were introduced into the substances through the genetic RE-engineering of their plant and animal sources?

    I do not know anyone who is opposing the production of more foods, food security, or the application of any technology a priori for ideological reasons, or refuses to harness the potential of biotechnology in all its facets as his stand on modern agricultural practices, the necessity to feed increasing population, and climate change effect. All the people who oppose GM foods that I have read or heard do so because there is NO consensus that they are safe as NO safety study of any GM food has given ACTUAL researchers the basis for that consensus.

    I wish to refer to Dr. Arpad Pusztai to buttress what I said in the preceding paragraph.

    It should be recalled, or read in the internet, that he requested more funds for continued research to find out what really made the GM potato the safety of which he investigated while he headed the research team of Rowett Research Institute unsafe and make GM food safe but he was denied the funds requested. Independent researchers have continued to be denied funds and even seeds for research. Only the promoters and defenders of GMOs and GM foods have continued to enjoy funds for their activities .

    It is known that while the USFDA usurped the right to certify foods safe for sovereign, independent and free nations of the world, after its safety study of the first GM food, GM tomato named Flavr Savr, finding that it was toxic, it declared that the producers of GM foods should be trusted to make them safe and that no more safety study of GM foods would be required or necessary. Subsequently, the unscientific “substantial equivalence” was introduced as the means of certifying foods safe for consumption. On the other hand, Monsanto CEO has declared that the company has no duty to ensure the safety of GM foods, that doing so is the duty of USFDA and that its own interest is to sell as much as possible, ensuring that it does not lose even one cent, and that all seeds used for farming would be owned by the company.

    The recommendation by RobertWager ignores or neglects these issues which are totally condemnable for being anti-science, ideological, and catalysts for deadly foods production, and the violation of the inalienable right to life, safe foods, good health and longevity of nations.

    It is also appropriate to consider the composition of the EASAC, where the loyalty of individual members lies or whose interest each is dedicated to the promotion and protection of, and why. In this regard, I recall the US v. EU at the WTO.

    The Planting the Future is pro-GMOs and GM foods. There is no evidence that the EASAC considered the remaining issue—-SAFETY of GMOs and GM foods—or means to ensure that GM foods are safe before they are put out for consumption. These facts are fundamental disqualifications of the body on the matter of the acceptance of GMOs and GM foods.

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      Robert Wager is a pro-GMO activist and spokesperson. He spreads antiscience, pro-GMO misinformation on behalf of the agrochemical industry.

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    GMO operative

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
  • 

    totally unbiased,independent,non-industry supported,not funded in any way,right,Robbie?

    Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
    • 

      You can look at the list I provided earlier in this thread. Yes to ALL of your criteria (except funded – the universities or government (taxpayers) actually have to pay their wages).

      Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
      • 

        Your industry propaganda is not science. Try again.

        Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate
        • 

          Are you incapable of reading? Not surprising.

          I provided 40+ scientific research papers from 38 different universities and government research agencies from 26 different countries, not ONE of which received any funding from industry, or even had a contributing researcher with any industry affiliation.

          If that isn’t sufficient for you, I rest my case that your ‘religious’ beliefs are so endemic, you are incapable of critical assessment.

          Perhaps you need to re-enroll in some middle-school science classes.

• 

  Terry Hill

  I had no use of my laptop after Friday. This posting is made because, as I have observed, the debate has continued and you did one directed to me.

  First, my fundamental and overriding argument is that there is NO agreement between the people who argue for the consumption of GM foods and the people who argue against this position. This is not, contrary to your claim, “your (my) ideologically held paradigm”. It is a FACT. If it is not a fact present the agreement between them; that is, agreement that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals between the opposing parties.

  Hence or otherwise, show why there are still opposing views on GM foods status, demands for withdrawal of GMOs and GM foods, withdrawals in some countries, and demands for labelling of GM foods in the USA.

  You also claim that I do not understand “the scientific method, or research”. Is this BASIC method right: Foreign DNAs and genes are transferred into the genomes of plant and animal sources of foods intended to be “modified” (RE-engineered) or “improved” (poisoned) using a bacterium, virus and gene gun. At least four other foreign genes are introduced along with a target gene to make achievement of desired result possible. The target gene codes for a desirable food characteristic. It is believed that it will transfer this characteristic to the plant or animal source of food WITHOUT ANY EFFECT. Note the emphasis!!!! However, this is, contrary to the assumption, one of the sources of the problems associated with the research. Is this BRIEF right, or it is wrong?

  Concerning “the first thing about science”, tell the public what this is and how you have observed it or shown that you know it in your arguments.

  Present the “every single paper (… in total, about 16 currently published in predatory journals) that claims harm from GMO or GMO-related pesticides” and proof that they are wrong or present repeat research papers that show that they are wrong.

  Here I give you just three papers—I believe that they are standard papers—to consider as proof that I am NOT biased against GM foods but, rather, holistic and objective and, like a true scientist, interested in and insistent on FACT or evidence that GM foods are safe for consumption by human beings and animals, as a condition for their continued production and sale.

  1). Refer to USFDA paper on Flavr Savr—the first GM food, tomato. What did it reveal? Why did Alliance for BioIntegrity go to court? What did the action reveal?

  2). Present paper for A.Pusztai and SWB Ewen, 1999, and report of six Lancet investigators. Present any repeat paper that shows that their findings are wrong. Why did Prof. Philip James, Director for Rowett Research Institute at the time, who approved Puszatai’s research results and gave him leave to speak at television interview change his stand within 24 hours after Pusztai’s appearance at the interview? Why were his papers confiscated, not released to the public so that the experts can decide on it?

  2). Present paper by Monsanto’s researchers on its GM corn NK603 and glyphosate v. Seralini et al for the same research.

  About your claims about publications and peer reviews that show GM foods are safe, I hold that Domingo et al—–many claims, very few facts—applies, and NO fact to your claim.

  Log in to Reply - Flag as inappropriate