The story behind Séralini’s disappearing GMOs-are-toxic study, and the journal that published it

|

Where did the latest Séralini anti-GMO paper go?

In a bizarre twist involving the French scientist whose controversial studies are the bedrock of the anti-GMO movement, Gilles-Éric Séralini told Retraction Watch that he has no idea.

Here’s the story.

Gilles-Éric Séralini newest attack on GMOs, this one purporting to show that a type of genetically modified corn once used in livestock feed can be toxic, has disappeared from the web. Séralini and his research group, Criigen — Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering — held a news conference on January 26 announcing:

… new scientific data on Bt toxins and a thorough study of the records show that this GMO Bt maize is most probably toxic over the long term.

Co-authored with Gottfried Glöckner, a German dairy farmer involved in the experimental testing of the corn known at Bt176 (developed by Novartis, now Syngenta) during the 1990s, the article appeared in the Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Sciences (SJAS). Never heard of it? It’s an obscure journal — or was a journal until it disappeared one day after the Séralini paper was published. Based in Nigeria, it was known as an ‘open access’ predatory journal because it its business model was to print controversial, often low quality articles–but only after the authors paid high fees, supposedly to cover editorial services and professional review. They often prey on scientists who are desperate to add publications to their resume, or scientists, like Séralini who cannot get their work published any more in serious, scholarly publications.

Considering Séralini‘s tainted reputation — he has published numerous controversial articles claiming that GMO foods are dangerous that have been widely discredited by regulatory oversight agencies — the mainstream press ignored the event. Two members of the European Parliament spoke out in support of the study. Michèle Rivasi, of France, an environmentalist MEP and member of the Environment and Health Committee in the European Parliament noted the study was proof the precautionary principle should dictate GMO policy. Carey Gillam, the former Reuters reporter renowned for her anti-GMO reporting — after being separated from the global news service, she took a job as “research director” at the anti-GMO organic industry funded U.S. Right to Know, tweeted her admiration for Séralini’s perseverance in informing the public about the ‘dangers’ of GMOs:

Picture1

The article was gaining some traction in anti-GMO community when the day after it’s release, poof, it disappeared from the web. Readers who click on the link for the article here go to an empty page, with a note saying that the domain expired on January 27.

The anti-biotech website GMWatch, which is run by the same people who oversee Seralini’s propaganda site, GMOSeralini, continues to hype the article. According to GMWatch, the journal also published a commentary by Seralini, which detailed Glöckner’s expertise in this area, but the link to goes to the expired site. This was recovered from wayback machine, and posted on Retraction Watch:

When German farmer Gottfried Glöckner began feeding his cows on GM Bt176 maize in 1998, he noticed strange symptoms appearing in the animals. They included partial paralysis (paresis), accompanied by severe fatigue and problems in the kidneys and mucous membranes, followed by death in 10% of cases.

Initially the culprit was thought to be a bacterial or viral disease. Analyses were conducted, including some by university laboratories, in collaboration with the German Ministry of Health and the GM maize developer company, Syngenta (then Novartis). But the investigations drew a blank.

By 2002 the proportion of GM Bt maize in the diet, which had been progressively introduced, had reached 40%. Glöckner had become convinced that Bt maize was the cause of the diseases in his cows. He sued Syngenta and was awarded partial compensation for his losses. But he subsequently suffered legal and personal setbacks, as reported in a commentary newly published by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini in the the peer-reviewed Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Sciences (SJAS) (Séralini GE,The experience of one of the first GM crop farmers in Europe, SJAS 2016).

After the court cases ended, Prof Séralini gained access to the veterinary records and to detailed archived data for each cow, as well as to the testimony of the farmer, who holds a Master’s degree in Agricultural Sciences.

Analyzing Gottfried Glockner’s story

In the 1990’s, Gottfried Glöckner and his wife owned a farm in Weidenhof, Wölfersheim, Hessen, Germany. The couple grew conventional crops like corn and raised livestock. When GMOs began to be available for farmers in the mid 1990’s, Glöckner was initially very intrigued by this new technology. He told The Ecologist in 2014:

Since 1995 when genetically modified Roundup-Ready (RR) Soy was imported into the EU, approved under the principle of ‘substantial equivalence,’ I had been interested in the subject GMO technology in plants. When in 1997 the EU approved the commercial sale of Syngenta GMO corn (Syngenta Bt176) I decided, as a farmer interested in new better technologies, to grow Syngenta’s Bt176 on my land.

By 2002, 40 percent of the feed he was giving his cows was derived from Syngenta’s Bt176 maize — a GMO corn that possesses the gene for a bacterial toxin that is also an organic bt insecticide. Yet around this time, Glöckner started to become worried about the safety of these crops. In 2001, a few of his cows became lethargic, weak, and had reduced milk yield. That year, five of his 66 cows died. A similar scenario played out in 2002 and seven dead cows. After conducting his own investigation, Glöckner concluded that the culprit for the death of his cows was the bt cornThe incident turned into a large news event in Germany and regulatory agencies were called to investigate.

In the 15 years since the incident, Glöckner fought a long legal battle with Syngenta and was incarcerated for violence against his wife. Now that the legal battles are over the the data and veterinarian record were finally released and Séralini was able to get a hold of it and decided to publish the data.

How did these cows die?

Many critics of the paper have pointed out the confusing nature of the opening statement of the paper in which the authors admit, “This study was not designed as a scientific experiment.” The phrase is also repeated in the paper’s abstract. Yet despite this self-characterization as not science, it has been promoted as a scientific evidence against the safety of GMOs.

Yet, putting aside some of the quirks of this paper and the journal, there is still a legitimate question of what happened to these cows. Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Jany, who was the head of the Molecular Biology Centre of the Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food in Germany from 1998-2008 and was asked at the time by the Ministry of Agriculture for an assessment, investigated the farm and the cows shortly after the tragedy.

In his expert opinion, the evidence for the cause of the cow’s deaths was most likely attributed to one of a few factors which all revolve around Glöckner’s use of inappropriate feeding practices. Jany says the farm was using, “inappropriate power feed and a wrong feed composition to increase the milk yield in a short time.” Furthermore, he notes that they found Glöckner was using, “inadequate and unsanitary corn silage with many undesired contaminations (plastics and dead rats) of the corn silage.” Finally, Jany says botulism also couldn’t be ruled out as at least a potential cause for at least some of the deaths.

Jany’s explanation is also consistent with the vast majority of research into the the affects of GMOs in the feed of animals. Most notably, a large one from 2015 published in Journal of Animal Science which used data from 100 billion animals and found no health dangers to the animals from GMOs. But large data sets might not be needed to conclude that GMOs in animal feed are safe safe. Today, almost all of livestock feed today is derived from GMOs, and if they weren’t safe to consume Séralini wouldn’t need to go looking for the one farmer who lost 12 cows.

Séralini had apparently hoped that this new “study” would stir the embers of concern around GMO food safety. The Criigen news release:

This study reveals once again the urgent need for specific labelling of the identity and quantity of GMOs, especially in food and feed. Long-term testing of GM food and the pesticides they are designed to contain must be carried out and made public. This is now more essential than ever.

In fact, this study reveals only one thing: it’s critical that research on biotechnology, food and farming practices be carried out by credible researchers publishing in top tier journals reviewed by respected independent international science agencies. That leaves Séralini on the sidelines.

Nicholas Staropoli is the Associate Director of GLP and Director of the Epigenetics Literacy Project. He has an M.A. in biology from DePaul University and a B.S. in biomedical sciences from Marist College. Follow him on twitter @NickfrmBoston.

  • Stuart M.

    That Seralini is still allowed to be associated with Nice University is a travesty. This man is the laughingstock of the scientific world. But he can still earn a mint hitting the ani-GMO lecture circuit.

    • Brian Sandle

      Stuart M, Seralini et al have recently won a defamation case.

      • kfunk937

        Which in no way validates his work. The dude just doesn’t science atall.

        • Brian Sandle

          If that criticism of him were true he would not have succeeded in the libel case. It does not validate his science it just removes some false invalidation.

          • JP

            You’re right. A study as poorly run as Seralini’s rat study could either have been due to purposeful manipulation or gross incompetence.

            The results of the lawsuit now suggest it was the latter.

          • Brian Sandle

            JP it was not incompetent. It was made to look incompetent by shills saying it was about things it wasn’t.

          • JP

            Ah, and he broke! Smashed that shill gambit and conspiracy theory wall right down.

          • Brian Sandle

            JP burbling

          • Loren Eaton

            Read Arjo, et al. Learn something.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Then why has nobody else been able to reproduce the results?

          • Brian Sandle

            Who have tried? Let’s see their results, please.

            Also note that the cow study cannot be repeated since the NaturGard/KnockOut was withdrawn in 2005. And it was an analysis of events when the upset farmer got out of prison and his diaries became available. So it is not experimental research which can be repeated. It is like going back over old earthquake data and buidling design.

            And take note, The Seralini rat study was actually itself a *repeat* of a Monsanto study, finding more strength in the directions the figures the short Monsanto study had suggested.

          • Not really. They are independent events. His lumpy rat study was/is a POS either way.

          • Wackes Seppi

            You obviously need some teaching on defamation law in France.

            And check the full facts.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Libel laws in other countries are not the same as the US, where proof is an absolute defense. There have been cases in Europe where absolute proof – including criminal court convictions – was provided, yet they were still able to sue for defamation.

          • Damo

            That lawsuit just said that Seralini didn’t purposely mislead people by lying about results. It did however confirm that he was mistaken because the experiment was run so poorly.

          • Brian Sandle
          • Damo

            What refs? Read the actual lawsuit!

          • Brian Sandle

            I would appreciate a link to the lawsuit. Richard Goodman, a former Monsanto employee had a position made for him on the FCT board. A story was made up that the experiment was about cancer and did not have enough rats. The Seralini expermient was not about cancer, but tumours were reported as ethics requires. Any way if it were about cancer, extra rats are only required to prove there is no cancer which is a stricter test than for the Monsanto toxicology test which Seralini was developing.and using the same number and type of rats.as Monsanto. A complaint was made to the Committee on Publication Ethics. Publisher Elsevier made FCT publish a repsonse from Seralini. FCT now has a new chief editor and Richard Goodman has gone since early 2015, it seems.

          • Damo

            I don’t have a link to the lawsuit. I read it months ago when it first occurred. However, the defense was built upon the idea that Seralini was not lying when he released his paper, but rather that he was mistaken.

            Also, the journal being sued was not the journal that retracted the paper, but rather another journal where someone had editorialized that they thought Seralini had committed fraud.

            So, yes, the lawsuit found that no fraud was conducted, it did not however say that the paper was correct.

          • Peter Olins

            Yes, no evidence for actual fraud, but an uncanny ability to over-interpret his results.

            Years of work, hundreds of dead and suffering rats, shoddy experimental design, and a meaningless study. What a waste.

          • Damo

            That article is about specifically trying to change the genes of a wild population by introducing a genetically modified population that would breed with the wild population. It is about the ecological effects of introducing a man made organism into the wild (specifically to control insects that work as vectors for disease) to benefit man. Which I might add I am against.

            It has absolutely nothing to do with crops, gene-splicing, or worry about GMO science. It is talking about a particular method of controlling disease. Please work on your reading comprehension. Thank you.

          • Brian Sandle

            The article refers to CRISPR, gene editing, “In the past two years, researchers have used a popular gene-editing technique called CRISPR–Cas9 to develop gene drives that spread a given gene through a population almost exponentially faster than normal in yeast,…” YEAST such as used for bread and wine.

          • Damo

            Yes, the article refers to CRISPR, but apparently you didn’t read the whole thing because it was ABOUT the ethics of purposely releasing GMOs with the intent of altering the wild population, something that does not occur with GMOs used in agriculture.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            You are absolutely correct, that people do not purposely release GMO’s with the intent of altering wild populations, but considering the rise of herbicide resistant weeds through horizontal gene transfer, I would say that it is something that does occur with GMOs used in agriculture.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Uh, no, not if a person understands herbicide resistance is a natural occurrence, not produced by humans genetically engineering the weeds in any way. Nope, herbicide tolerant weeds have been with us for as long as there have been herbicides…and long before the first genetically engineered plant.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Ok, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that horizontal gene transfer never happens, even though it is well documented occurrence. Often times the GMO crop itself becomes the weed, as is the case with Roundup Ready GMO Canola in North Dakota. There was an article in Scientific American about it a few years ago. So, while not intentionally done, GMO crops have gotten loose and are altering wild populations with the specific GM herbicide resistance trait that was added to the GM crop, which is different than a weed acquiring a natural resistance to an herbicide, as that is usually accomplished through alternate mechanisms of action,

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Right, so you’ve been working your panties into a wad over nothing. The sky is not falling. It must be infuriating to realize you’ve been letting anti-GMO cranks and crackpots jerk you around by the hair and point you in their chosen direction. Must be refreshing to begin thinking clearly for yourself, finally, isn’t it?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I could care less if Roundup Ready Canola becomes an invasive weed to GMO farmers. But, I do think that it is a good example showing the potential risks of GMOs since they can and do find their way into wild populations. I would be concerned if a trait such as the GURT, terminator trait, were to find it’s way into wild relatives of GMO crops as that could have negative impact on biodiversity. Only someone who is on receiving end of government subsidies to grow corn/soy for biofuel and animal feed would be so quick to turn a blind eye to this risk.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Oh, we’ve been managing weeds and volunteer plants for 10,000 years, give or take. I expect we’ll manage capably enough for a while longer. How will GURT establish itself if it isn’t perfected and isn’t being used? Have seedless grapes taken over the place when I wasn’t looking? Are you suggesting some sort of spontaneous generation? Odds are slim to none on any of that, so you can relax and let your panties breathe easy, too…

          • Viva La Evolucion

            It is you who has your panties in a bunch, worried that you will stop receiving your government handouts to grow corn and soy for biofuel and animal feed now that Roundup has been reclassified as a carcinogen and GMOs are about to become labeled.. GURT is being tested in test plots and we have just established that GMOs can and do escape into the wild. But, I do like your arguing strategy of when you loose argument regarding GMOs escaping into the wild, you then change subject to whether or not that is cause for concern.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, you’re only about 40 years behind the 8 ball with those “government handouts” you’re so angry about. I remember my dad and uncles getting some, and grandad boasting about one or two years when he got some. Haven’t seen any of that in 15 – 20 years now. Sure, some crop insurance premium co-pays on policies that are basically mandatory. But up here where we farm and as successfully as we farm (if I do say so) we’ve had only a couple of isolated crop failures (just a few fields) that qualified as a “claim” and the check covered just 60% of the market value of 50% of the lost crop (that’s the screwy way they figure it, so a maximum possible payout of 30% of your crop loss) and that only in case of a complete catastrophe, and I mean utter devastation (which almost never happens). Still better than nothing, I suppose, but it certainly wouldn’t “save the farm” if you were that close to a business failure anyway.

            Over the years we’ve certainly not recovered what we’ve paid in premiums, and there is not a crop disaster imaginable that could turn that around. So, not much of a handout. We cooperate mainly because our bankers like to reserve the possibility of taking a government guarantee on some loans they might one day make with us. There are occasionally some environmental and energy conservation programs we will participate in, and to qualify you MUST have been buying their crappy crop insurance, and so we do purchase the minimum allowable. Otherwise it’s unimportant. Crop insurance premiums are just another cost of doing business around here, certainly not a profitable investment.

            You’re also strung out over ethanol subsidies, I guess, and those have cut both ways for farmers. A lot of years our corn and soybeans have been worth a lot more because of the ethanol market, but a lot of other years not so much — this year, especially, not so much. But prices paid for livestock feed also go up and down with corn and soy prices, so in a good year what we gain on surplus corn sales, for example, we pay right back out for high cost grains to balance the diet for the livestock. It’s really not ever a windfall when we balance the books each year end.

            Also I see you’re back to stomping and clenching over “GMOs” and especially GURT “escaping into the wild” and taking over the world, I guess. Thought you had your mind at ease with the remoteness of any such thing occurring. There is no GURT, and if there ever is can you imagine any realistic biological or even logical scenario in which a plant that can’t reproduce itself could establish itself in the wild and miraculously influence other plants to also become incapable of reproduction — and all these dead ends could proliferate and result in some sort of cataclysm? That’s beyond science fiction. Steven Spielberg couldn’t pull that story off.

            As for existing “GMO” canola, or whatever, “escaping into the wild”, well they could to a limited extent under the most favorable conditions — if we let that happen. Of course, we’re careful to keep that sort of thing from happening. if we weren’t, then everything would be all crossed up with everything else and there would be only one variety of tomato, one variety of sweet corn, one variety of strawberry, one variety of grape…you get the idea. Also, so far the genetically engineered traits code for just one esoteric feature at a time in one host plant. That doesn’t confer any real competitive advantage to a GE plant over an established ecosystem of adapted wild plants, even with Roundup Ready since the wild plants would have to be disadvantaged by being sprayed with Roundup in order for your “escaped” GMO to take over the wilderness. It’s another logical impossibility, if not a biological impossibility. Any GE plant that has managed to “escape” our husbandry has had it’s work cut out for it to compete and survive in the wild, much less take over the place. Just doesn’t happen.

            But I can see you have your mind made up and you’re gonna keep recycling and reciting your favorite techno-phobias. I’ve watched you repeat them over and over before. No point in discussing this further if you’ve cycled us once through your crank repertoire. So unless you have another issue from outside your regular playbook, I will wish you happy stomping and clenching while I go out and get a little farming done.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Wow, don’t get your panties in a bunch. The government handout accusation must have really hit a nerve for you to write this book of a comment explaining how the government subsidized crop insurance you receive to grow corn and soy is not a government handout. Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night is fine, but don’t expect other people to believe that crap.

            The facts is that growing corn/soy for use as animal feed is one of the most water/resource intensive methods of food production known to man. Also, growing corn/soy for biofuel feedstock has worse environmental impact than burning fossil fuels. In the US, we are currently subsidizing the practice of growing corn soy for biofuel feedstock and animal feed, and the rest of it is primarily used as junk food feedstock. Instead of true innovation, which thrives in a free market, our current agricultural subsidies are rewarding farmers who have figured out how to get their hands on the most government subsidy dollars instead of the farmer who can produce food/energy in the most cost effective water/resource efficient fashion.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Nah, I sleep just fine. Just explaining the other side, the real side of the story in case any open-minded person was interested in what actually does go on out here. Don’t worry, it wasn’t intended for you, chimpy, because we all know you’re too far gone down the brainwashing path to straighten any of your precious distortions.

            And as for all your sleepless nights fretting over ethanol, well, tell it to someone who gives a shit what you might think. Maybe you should have told it to someone who could have done something about it back in the day…like your blow buddies who dreamed up ethanol to save the planet in the first place. You “concerned” dumbasses are dangerous whenever you can pull off any of your stupid half-baked ideas. You jerks screw up and turn around and blame the collateral damage on the rest of us. And we just laugh at you and cash the checks.

            I guess my extended family’s farms are all in the right business according to you, chimpy, because we’re growing corn and soy in a region where we always have plenty of water, too much a lot of the time. We will happily grow more if the guys growing it where there’s too little water want to feed out hogs or cattle or something — we’ll ship ’em the feeder stock and the grain to do it right.

            Oh well, chimpy, we’ll all just keep on farming and you and your blow buddies can go suck another organic zucchini (don’t mind the manure fertilizer smeared all over it – it’s natural)

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Like I said, anyone who argues in favor of the billions of dollars in subsidies dollars given out each year to grow corn and soy for biofuel and animal feed are most likely on the receiving end of such subsides. New Zealand has thriving agricultural industry with no subsidies. I agree that using rainwater is better than using irrigation water, but rain is still a valuable resource, so not the best excuse for wasting it on water/resource intensive methods of food/energy production when it could be used in more efficent manner. I am not suggesting that we stop producing meat, only that we stop subsidizing that practice.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Ha, ha, ha, except, we don’t subsidize corn and soy for animal feed. And we don’t directly subsidize it for biofuel, either — we mandate the use of ethanol in gasoline and we spend gobs of grant money to develop soy oil biofuels, thus creating a market demand for soy and especially for corn, driving commodity prices upward. Why corn? Because you and your do-gooder blow buddies, chimpy, clamored for ethanol to replace gasoline, ethanol from cellulose fermentation. And your cult forced us to lavishly fund research into a hypothetical commercial scale technology that couldn’t possibly scale up to meet schedules for ethanol to be blended into gasoline. So to meet schedules you and your blow buddies turned to ethanol from grain (moonshine, basically) to fill the void. You idiot do-gooder fools got suckered by the cellulosic ethanol hucksters and ended up, in desperation out of your colossal failure, making our corn nearly priceless for a while. And did you rescue the planet by any of this? Apparently not — you’re still bitching and complaining, maybe worse than before ethanol. So out here in America we laugh at you and cash the checks.

            Strangely, for all your obsolete bitching about “farm subsidies” that no longer exist, you and your blow buddies lobbied hard for subsidies for organic farmers — and you won them! Yep, the haters of subsidies are finally subsidized like never before.

            http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-provisions-in-the-2014-farm-act.aspx

            Of course organic special interests think it’s not enough handouts for them and perceive it’s only the beginning of a rising tide of lavish subsidies for alternative agriculture — and they may be right. Hypcritical much?

            And now you’re naively bitching about “wasting” rainwater! The smartest and most practical way to save rainwater is to absorb it into vast landscapes of growing crops and also use it to grow livestock. Then you can ship that rainwater anywhere as food! Sunshine and rainwater in tasty nourishing packages. Smarter and more meaningful to the average American family than rain barrels or photovoltaics or wetland expansion. And what are you and your bllow buddies doing with rainwater in your own neighborhoods? You’re collecting it and sending it swirling down storm drains to overwhelm your sewage treatment plants and flushing the entire disgusting mess into our lakes and rivers.

            http://act.oceanconservancy.org/site/DocServer/fsStormDrains.pdf?docID=212

            Your redundant distortions are epic, chimpy. Your hypocrisy is inexcusable…except by your handlers, who have you perfectly brainwashed and programmed to recite the talking points over and over and over. Misinformed little spambot – sucks to be you, chimpy.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Acutally, we are still give direct payment subsidy handouts to the livestock industry.

          • Damo

            Yeah, that is not what is happening. Resistance is part of evolution, not caused by genes in another species of plant.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Yes, weeds forming a resistance to Roundup is primarily caused by evolution, but that is not the case of Roundup Ready Canola, which has itself become a weed in the wild.

          • Damo

            Do you have information about escaped canola (gmo or not) that you can share?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            No, they have not been commercialized anywhere in the world due to the potential problems that I mentioned.

          • Damo

            So when you said, “Yes, weeds forming a resistance to Roundup is primarily caused by evolution, but that is not the case of Roundup Ready Canola, which has itself become a weed in the wild.” That was not true–or you just don’t have any proof to back up the claim.

            I am confused.

          • Peter Olins

            “The Establishment of Genetically Engineered Canola Populations in the U.S.”
            http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025736

          • Damo

            One more thing, yeast is used (as well as fruit flies) because you can have multiple generations in a short time–so you can see results in a short time. The yeast was only the experiment, no one wants to put a gene drive into the same yeast made to make beer or bread.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            So, releasing GMO mosquitoes with terminator gene has potential to greatly reduce mosquito populations, but accidentally releasing gmo canola terminator pollen from test plots have no chance of altering wild canola populations?

          • Damo

            I want to make one thing clear before I start: this is not meant as an insult, but you are ignorant about GMOs (as am I, but not to the same extent).

            What that article was about was not terminator genes. It was about using a ramped up process to intentionally spread the population of the GMO mosquito so fast that they out-compete the native population and then be unable to reproduce. Yes, terminator genes are involved, but it is the CRISPR process that makes the terminator gene effective. Non-gmo and gmo canola currently have the same opportunity to escape into the wild–and that is not much of one.

            Also, if the terminator gene works, the cultivated canola would only live for one generation.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Acutally, my reply was to someone else who we had previously discussed test plots growing crops with GURT terminator genes in plants. Yes, if the pollen from one of these, let’s say terminator canola plants pollinated wild canola, then just as with mosquitos, the weeds that are getting pollinated with terminator pollen do not go on to reproduce. But, there is one catch. They only don’t reproduct about 90% of the time. So, 10% of the pollinated wild canola plants would reproduce and continue to spread the terminator gene and over time would alter the ecosystem.

          • Damo

            No, go back to Mendel. That 10% would remain a minority (unless somehow all of the non-cross pollinated individuals were wiped out). It would remain a minority, because the genes are only sometimes passed on and even then 90% of the offspring would die.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Go back to math class. That 10% would gradually increase, as 10% of it’s offspring would survive, and 10% of it’s offspring’s offspring would survive, and so on.

          • Damo

            Yeah, no, that is diminishing, not increasing. 10% of 100 is 10. 10% of 10 is 1. So the math is wrong–but even if it weren’t the genes wouldn’t all be transferred, otherwise we would all be clones of one another.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            You seem to be forgetting that one plant can pollinate 100s of plants.

          • Damo

            yes, but it works both ways. Non-gmo plants will continue to also pollinate “100s of plants.” In order for a new gene to go from just a mutation to part of the gene pool, it needs to have an advantage. What advantage does this gene give to the offspring that would allow it to become more prevalent?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Well, let’s say that scientist create a drought tolerant canola plant with terminator gene so those pesky farmers don’t try to save their seeds. Now, if it accidentally got released into the wild, the drought tolerant gene would give the plant an advantage, and thus allow the terminator gene to become more prevalent.

          • Damo

            Well, yeah, but so would a non-gmo drought tolerant variety of canola. The terminator gene does not offer an advantage–it actually offers a disadvantage and will work itself out. You seem to not understand that mutations are occurring all the time and they can be of three varieties–benign, advantageous, or harmful. The benign has little to no effect. The advantageous one is the one that spreads. In this case, it is the drought tolerance, not the terminator, gene that offers the advantage. For this very reason I would rather see terminator genes in all crops–what better way to preserve the genetic purity of a wild population?

            Oh, and just a side note–farmers are free to buy their seed from whoever they want. They are also free to keep seed from year to year, as long as the agreement with the seed company allows them to do so. If they want to keep their seeds (which modern farmers do not want to do) they are free to buy from a company that allows that. The terminator gene is only to protect intellectual property (patents) and not to force farmers to buy the same seed over and over again. There are other options than buying a seed with a terminator. But you know, all those dumb, lazy farmers (your words–not mine) are happy to have the seed companies do the work of collecting and storing seeds so they don’t have to.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Well, fortunately for the world you are not in charge of deciding whether or not terminator genes are allowed in GMO crops. There is a moratorium on commercial sale of terminator seeds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology#Opposition

          • Damo

            Why is that fortunate? I would think you would be happy that I don’t want the natural world to be infected with our tinkering?

            Also, still waiting for the evidence that RoundUp Ready Canola has escaped into the wild.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            As I stated, if the GMO crop that has terminator gene also happens to have other trait that gives it advantage over it’s wild counterpart, then the terminator gene does not act as intended and is able to persist in the wild. Here’s the info you requested on Canola becoming a weed: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/genetically-modified-canola-becoming-a-weed-1.299420

          • Damo

            And as I said, the terminator gene would actually keep that variety of canola in check versus a non-gmo variety that is also drought tolerant. Canola, corn, rice, zucchini, whatever are all man-made inventions that won’t survive in the wild (that is why we have so many inputs for them). If these crops aren’t showing up everywhere currently, what makes you think they might show up once a gene designed to keep them reproducing is introduced?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Did you not just see the reference I provided showing that canola has become a weed in some regions. There are many man-made crops that will easily survive in the wild. Have you heard of amaranth? But, there is a reason that there are not any GMO drought tolerant crops. Scientist haven’t figured out how to make a GMO drought tolerant crop that is significantly better than their non-gmo counterparts. They have however been quite successful at creating drought tolerant crops through traditional breeding methods. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/monsantos-droughtgard-corn-0391.html#.V4O_z7grKhc

          • Damo

            Did you read your own reference? It said a weed in farm fields. Nothing about the wild.

            Why are you talking about gmo-drought tolerant plants? I thought you were on about the terminator gene–which I thoroughly explained would be an advantage in this case, because it would keep the possibility of a drought tolerant variety from escaping. That has absolutley nothing to do with whether or not scientists have been able to GMO drought resistance. It is only a statement about the fact that drought resistant varieties without the terminator gene are more likely to pollute the gene pool than those with the terminator gene.

            Don’t change the argument halfway through.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            We are going in circles here. There is GMO canola in the wild. Here is another link. There is also a moratorium on terminator gene in crops, for the exact reasons I have mentioned. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetically-modified-crop/

          • Damo

            Weed in the wild and weed on farm fields are two entirely separate things. The article you linked to specifically says that the RR canola is caused by applying manure that may contain the seeds. It does not say that the canola is cross pollinating with “wild” canola.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Roundup Ready Canola is growing the wild now, and is likely to cross with other sexually compatible weeds such as field mustard, if it hasn’t already. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetically-modified-crop/

          • Peter Olins

            No doubt, there is also non-GMO canola that has escaped “in the wild”, also with the potential for occasional crossing. So what? Are you saying that canola should not be grown because it is able to grow outside of fields? Surely, there are hundreds of other crops that can also survive in the wild: why focus on canola?

            I don’t think that canola is particularly invasive, unlike plants such as tamarisk or Russian olive.

            (BTW given your Disqus alias, surely you are in favor of “la evolucion”?)

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I am not saying that canola shouldn’t be grown, although wouldn’t really bother much if it wasn’t grown, as I prefer many other oils over canola. Nevertheless, my point is that GMO crops can and do escape into the wild, which is not much of a concern in the case of Canola, but has potential to cause major change to the ecosystem if a different GMO traited crops were to be accidentally released. Yes, I am in favor of evolution through the process natural selection. I am NOT in favor of intelligently designing herbicide tolerant crops, be them GMO Roundup Ready crops, or non-GMo Clearfield crops, as those lead to overuse of herbicides.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Chmpy, I suspect you are a closet creationist. At least we don’t have to worry about any intelligent designs coming from you. You don’t know shit from canola.

            If your silly juvenile scaremongering had any basis in reality the North American prairies and the Eurasian steppe would long ago have transitioned themselves to a monoculture of escaped canola, all of Michigan’s land mass would be volunteer sugar beets to the lake’s edge and corn would be forcing its way through cracks in every Brooklyn sidewalk.

            Congratulations chimpy, you’ve won the Chicken Little award for July 2016!

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Haha…no, i’m not a creationist. I’m a militant atheist born and bred. Believe it or not, my dad was a genetic engineer, and mom a scientist as well when I was growing up, and as is the case with most people, I turned out having the same religious beliefs as my parents, which is to say I have no religious beliefs at all. I do not believe in any sort of conscious afterlife, but I do believe one can sort of live on after they die by passing on their genes/knowledge to their children, and also through contributions one make to society. I actually think genetic engineering is quite exciting, especially in regards to modifying human genes to extend lifespan, intelligence, and even think it has potential to greatly improve farming. But, I do not consider Roundup Ready style herbicide resistant GMO crops, or non-Gmo herbicide resistant crops like Clearfield Wheat, to be worthwhile traits as they lead to overuse of herbicides. I think that we humans can come up with better ways of controlling weed than spraying millions of acres of farmland with Roundup or other herbicide on a regular basis.

          • hyperzombie

            ” I think that we humans can come up with better ways of controlling weed than spraying millions of acres of farmland with Roundup”

            Wow, who is growing millions of acres of Weed? Is that why the price is down?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            didn’t you say something about hemp growing wild in your neck of the woods. that must be nice.

          • hyperzombie

            “although wouldn’t really bother much if it wasn’t grown, as I prefer many other oils over canola. ”

            You would be hung by the short hairs in these parts for such blasphemous comments.
            I live in downtown central of canola country (well more like the northwest suburbs), everyone around here grows canola. Yes it can grow in the wild but it does not survive for more than a couple of years. I don’t hear anyone complaining about alfalfa in the ditch, sweet clover, hemp. oats, and dozens of other non native plant that grow in the wild now.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            It sounds like, while a lot of those non-native plants will survive in the wild in your area, but that they have not become invasive.

          • Peter Olins

            I’m not sure you get my point. Why do you focus on the escape of traits from GMO as being something special? “Clearfield” herbicide-tolerant canola was developed using non-GMO breeding technology, but presumably this could leak into wild species just as easily as glyphosate- or glufosinate-tolerance. Like many people, you seem to be focusing on the breeding technology rather than the particular trait.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Escape of traits from GMO is nothing special, and I agree that clearfield herbicide tolerance gene can escape into the wild, just as can GMO herbicide tolerance can. And while I don’t approve of use of herbicide tolerant crops in farming, be them GMO or traditionally breed, I could care less if GMO canola or non-GMO clearfield genes find their way into the wild, as those are problems for herbicide tolerant farmers and herbicide manufactuers to worry about, and do not pose much risk to the environment in my opinion. My concern is with other traits being introduced into the wild that have potential to lead to invasive weeds or cause other unintended environmental harm..

          • hyperzombie

            And what would that do? A canola/field mustard hybrid would do what?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            It would be a pain in the bum if farmer were trying to grow Roundup Ready Alfalfa in that same plot of land that had wild Roundup Ready canola/mustard hybrid growing in it.

          • hyperzombie

            No more so than any other Roundup ready unwanted plants in his field.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            correct, luckily Roundup Ready is worthless trait that gives plant no real ability to outcompete it’s counterparts in the wild. however my point was that GMO canola escaping into the wild shows that there is potential for a future gmo trait to be unleashed that would actually cause weeds to become invasive in the wild.

          • hyperzombie

            I don’t get what you are trying to say. First you say that RR traits are a useless trait for wild plant but a future trait could be advantageous?

            Why do you worry about only GMO traits?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Herbicide tolerance traits, be them GMO or traditional bred, provide absolutely no benefit under 99.9% of conditions. The only time they are a benefit is if you are planning on spraying such plant with herbicide. Nevertheless, I think GMO has potential to improve farming and think that it can make crops that grow bigger, faster, more vigorous, and more nutritious, but unfortunately I’m not aware of any that have come out yet like that. However, as the GMO supporter often state, GMO is more precise genetic manipulation technique than traditional breeding, and thus it has potential to produce traits in months that would take several lifetimes to achieve with traditional breeding, so potential to create a super vigorous plants that could be accidentally unleashed into the wild and become invasive weeds is increased.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            When I plan to spray a RR plant with Roundup it is not to feed the RR plant, it is to place competing weeds at a distinct disadvantage. Hence the advantage shifts to the RR plant. An RR plant facing undiminished weed pressure is basically screwed, whether that’s in a corner of a field the sprayer missed or if it is an “escapee” in the wild. Screwed, screwed, screwed, screwed.

            Get it chimpy? It’s like giving you a signal when to duck before I deck your bully tormentor with a haymaker over your head. If you know the signal but I don’t swing, you’re left to the tender mercies of the bully and you get your butt kicked, once again. Face it, you’d prefer to know the signal and have me deliver the knockout punch so you could go on doing your thing without being bullied. The whole RR trait/Roundup application thing is sorta like that, chimpy.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Thanks, I know how RR crops work. Total waste of money for expensive seed and herbicide. Cover crops are more cost effective method of weed control. You may yield slightly less, but make up for it in seed cost savings and herbicide savings, plus the ground cover provides additional nutrition for the plants, so less fertilizer too. Oh and less water evaporating out of the soil too. But, I know you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, so I won’t bother trying to suggest you cut down on your roundup addiction. .

          • Farmer with a Dell

            That’s right. Don’t bother making stupid recommendations concerning things you know absolutely nothing about. Please. Your personal experience with RR crops, cover crops and farm finances wouldn’t half fill a thimble. That doesn’t stop you from talking out of your ass, though. Hallmark of a true bobbing head jackass doll.

          • hyperzombie

            I dont think you know what a terminator gene is…A drought tolerant plant only has an advantage when there is a drought.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I’m saying if a crop has both drought tolerant gene and terminator gene, then during a drought it would have advantage, so there terminator gene would be more likely to persist given that the terminator gene is not 100% effective.

          • hyperzombie

            How can a terminator gene persist in the wild?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            terminator gene is not 100% effective, so there are 5-10% or so of seeds that do go on to reproduce.

          • hyperzombie

            And how long cant this be maintained in the wild? 3 years max if that. hardly a terminator gene invasion.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I am more concerned with in in things like GMO trees which have a long life. If planted in large enough numbers it has potential to alter wild tree populations. I believe that is one of the reasons Monsanto has stated numerous times they are committed to NOT using terminator genes in their products. I’m not sure about other seed companies though.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Uh, chimpy, don’t look now, but canola is not a tree. Did you really think your mommie’s dining room table was made out of 100% canola wood veneer? You are such a sap chimpy. But I do have a nifty heirloom 100% mustard wood dunce stool I’d like to sell you.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Yes, I know canola is not a tree :-) you do know that there are many companies making GMO trees for paper and other products don’t you?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            So what about that dunce stool, chimpy. Say 4 easy payments of $500 plus shipping and handling? It would really complete your persona. You won’t find another one like it. But wait — if you call right now I will double your order, just pay additional shipping and handling. For just $375 more I will make it out of 100% GMO terminator mustard wood. For just 3 easy payments of $49.95 you will want the optional patented tin foil undershorts so the GMO terminator mustard wood stool seat doesn’t terminate your flabby ass. Comes with a parchment calligraphy of the precautionary principle, suitable for framing. Be sure to inquire about our exclusive line of fine alfalfa wood frames.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            So, do you raise livestock or not?

          • hyperzombie

            Nope, wild trees are designed by 1000s of years worth of selective breeding to grow well where they grow. there are not any traits that they need or they would have them.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            By that logic, why would anyone try to improve genetics of anything? You do know that scientist are already working on GMO trees for the paper industry right?

          • hyperzombie

            We make genetic improvements for humans not for nature. GMO trees are grown on tree farms. About as natural as the wild corn fields of Iowa.

          • Twan

            In classic terminator technology a repressor gene is included to prevents the terminator gene to become active. That way large ammounts of seeds can be produced. Before handing out to farmers these seeds need special (chemical or heat) treatment to deactivate the repression. Any Terminator gene escaping into the wild is harmless unless specifically activated. Without any advantage to the receiving plant lingering terminator genes will be phased out with time.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            More like maximum 1% succeed in reproducing…with difficulty. If it was 10% it wouldn’t be a “terminator” gene worth its weight in spit, and no one would commercialize it.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I believe that was one of the reasons it wasn’t commercialized. That and there is no market for it.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Right, but it’s been worth its weight in gold to agenda driven asshats like you to fictionalize and distort in service as a scare mongering tool. So, i guess it wasn’t a total loss, eh?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Ok, so anyways. Back to livestock. Do you raise any?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            What, are you selling terminator livestock now, guaranteed to crump after the first season? I wouldn’t be interested in farming any livestock you’ve had anything to do with. Chickens, pigs, sheep..I shudder to think of the breeding experiments you’ve been engaged in with them. Like I said, chimpy, I’m calling the ASPCA on you.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Wow, really don’t want to answer if you have livestock or not. I wonder why that is? Are you ashamed that you raise livestock or something?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Couple of first rate farm dogs to keep the peace around here. I’m not interested in any of your opinions about any of that but stop around and they will set you straight. Go pester someone on a chicken farming blog or something. I’m sure they will be as grateful to receive your asinine complaints about animal science as we are to endure your boundless stupidity about agronomy.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I will assume by your refusal to answer my question in regards to if you raise livestock or not, means that you do in fact raise livestock, and that you do in fact receive direct payment subsides from the government to do so.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yeah, and I am in fact a ballerina and I do in fact receive pennies from heaven. Are you lonely, chimpy? Why do you babble on and on? Listen, isn’t that your mother calling? It must be time for your nap chimpy.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I am curious, are you a man or a woman?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            OK, now you’re just getting creepy. We will be ending it here. Please keep your clothes on and don’t do anything stupid that will get you on the 6:00 news, chimpy.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Just curious, cause I was thinking of you as a guy, but remember another user referenced you a girl. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the issue of giving livestock and biofuel producers government handouts to purchase GMO corn/soy for their feedstock. Taxpayer subsidy money given to livestock and biofuel industry is primarily ending up in the hands of GMO corn/soy/ farmers and pesticide/seed manufactuers. I believe our country would be better off eliminating agriculture, livestock, and biofuel subsidies.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            And with the severe pressure from your hypothetical “terminator” feature (it’s not a 90% die, 10% thrive situation, more like 99% die outright and 1% are so negatively affected they may as well have died) your sickly hypothetical GE plant will, within the first season and another 1% in possibly a second season, stomp hell out of all the robust naturally adapted drought resistant weeds that are flourishing, finally enjoying their day in the sun…until the drought breaks and your stupid fragile hypothetical GE plant loses even it’s advantage from drought resistance.

            Chimpy, you really should venture outdoors once in a while and feel how microclimates change from season to season. Observe plant life in action. Maybe try to propagate a few fragile plants in the face of weed competition. Some math exercises wouldn’t hurt you either chimpy. Maybe practice multiplying one percent by another percent, as in projecting half-lives. Your mind has turned to mush from vegging out in air conditioned comfort in the basement of your mommies house. Keep that up and you’ll be back to wearing diapers before you know it.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I’m confused. If terminator seeds are so great, then why is Monsanto committed not to using them? If sending out steril GMO male mosquitos to impregnate female mosquitos has potential to decrease their numbers, why would sending out steril GMO pollen to pollinate susceptible plants NOT have potential to do the same?
            http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Monsanto (to use your example) can easily “commit” itself to not using “terminator gene” technology because there is no need for it and they have no intention of developing it commercially. No reason to spend the dough to bring it to a market where it has no value to the company. The patent agreements appear to have worked out just fine. Even chicken thief Percy Schmeiser didn’t outfox them. There are tons of nifty ideas out there that could be developed and, with enough time and money they could get approved. But if there’s no need or no market you take your capital and invest it in the next great thing that will probably have value.

            Your business acumen is worse than your conceptualization of genetics. When you get to the 10th grade, chimpy, you should seriously consider taking some business courses. Yep, but why do I suspect you are “committed” to not deflowering your intellectual innocence with facts and learning?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I agree with you that there is no need and no market for the terminator seeds. By the way, I’m thinking of getting a few cows. Do you raise any livestock? I was hoping you could give me some pointers?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            You are too stupid and too malicious to have animals. I am calling the ASPCA right now, chimpy.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            Do you have your livestock graze on your land like Gabe Brown does? I wanted your honest opinion of that practice. Don’t sugar coat it.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            I’m pretty sure I don’t have anything resembling what Gabe Brown does. If you’re referring to the chickens he had caged up on the ground, I think that must be pretty cruel. Rain and hail must pelt hell out of them and after dark the coyotes, foxes and skunks must terrify the bejeezus out of them. No, we don’t share any of Gabe Brown’s peculiarities around here. Don’t bother trying to tell me I must have chickens the same way you’re trying to tell me I must not have GE technology.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I wasn’t too impressed with how Gabe treated his chickens either. Hey, nobody’s perfect. I do like his cover cropping style though. So, anyways how do you raise your chickens? I may get some chickens but mainly interested in cows. I don’t really like the taste of chicken.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, good luck and when you grow up maybe you will become a big chicken tycoon like Frank Perdue. Then you can come back and tell us all about how it’s properly done and try to convince us we must try it. If your elementary school is any good, chimpy, you should be able to get into 4H or maybe FFA. Then you could raise up your chickens and show ’em at a fair or something. You might have better success at that than with a project involving crops or gardening. You’re hopeless with plants but maybe Gabe Brown could sponsor you in a chicken contest. I’m sure he must have a splendidly inspiring TED talk on chickens.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I’m actually thinking more of going in the cow direction instead of chickens. Sounds like it is chickens that you raise, right?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Mini mules. Cute as the very dickens. For $7500 I will set you up with your very own breeding pair. Then you will have your first practical lesson on genetics, breeding and terminator genes.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            can’t wait.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            And you’re positing that these novel strains of canola, because they are programmed for no greater than a 10% survival rate (and that’s stretching it) will have thereby gained a decisive competitive advantage over all the species of plants adapted to the ecosystem? Before you go on blathering away any further, I think you need to pause and explain to us how that unique competitive advantage accrues to canola with your fearsome “terminator gene”. Be sure to cite peer reviewed references supporting your detailed explanation.

            Frankly, I think you’ve demonstrated you are a moron, but let’s see your science anyway.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            I never said it would have a competitive advantage. My point is that the terminator gene persist and has potential to gradually increase in the wild. If 10% of it’s offspring survive and reproduce, and 10% of it’s offspring’s offspring do the same, and so on, then over the course of several generations the terminator gene becomes more prevalent in the wild.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Without a decisive competitive advantage your plant is promptly consigned to history. It does not persist. Your plant’s DNA does not persist. The dreaded hypothetical terminator gene does not persist. It is extinct as all your other unicorns, chimpy. Dead and long gone before you ever breathed life into it.

            BTW, where are your peer reviewed references for all this elementary school genetics hocus pocus you’re puking up on us? Don’t forget the references, chimpy. Those are the only things that can give your vacuous vomit body, texture, adhesive powers.

          • Viva La Evolucion

            GURT is not hypothetical, but it has not been commercialized anywhere in the world due to potential problems I have mentioned. So anyways, I am thinking about raising some cattle. Do you do any livestock production?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            References?

          • Viva La Evolucion
          • Farmer with a Dell

            Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed reference. When you get to 7th grade, chimpy, your teachers will no longer accept Wikipedia in your bibliography.

            I think we’re finished here, chimpy. Have a pleasant adolescence and try hard to grow up to be something honest and useful, OK?

          • Viva La Evolucion

            So, you are saying that there isn’t a moratorium on commercial sale of terminator seeds? http://www.ipsnews.net/2006/03/biodiversity-dont-sell-suicide-seeds-activists-warn/

      • Loren Eaton

        Whoopee!! And the Europeans say Americans are litigious. These are the same people who charged geologists for not accurately predicting an earthquake. Careful who you praise, Brian.
        And the work is STILL garbage.

        • Brian Sandle

          And besides in an another action a GMO event was registered only because a scientist’s signature was forged.

          • Loren Eaton

            Which one? If true, the people should be charged.

          • Brian Sandle

            There was a prosecution and the punishment is under consideration.

            “On 25 November 2015, the High Court of Paris indicted Marc Fellous,
            former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for
            “forgery” and “the use of forgery”, in a libel trial that he lost to
            Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini.”

          • Wackes Seppi

            Could you be more specific?

            This is really news.

          • Brian Sandle

            http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralinis-team-wins-defamation-and-forgery-court-cases-on-gmo-and-pesticide-research/

            The other comments on this thread are about the earlier case. But this is new.

      • cable1977

        He won a defamation case where he sued someone who claimed his work was fraudulent. The court decided there was no evidence of fraud, but that doesn’t imply that his work was good science in any way. Just because you aren’t lying about the work you’re doing doesn’t mean that you don’t suck at your job.

        • agscienceliterate

          Right, Cable. Just bad test and control methodologies. Unless he photoshopped in those tumors, or used arsenic instead of glyphosate, it may not meet the test of fraud, it’s just a bad study design, with highly questionable and thoroughly debunked outcomes. The end result s the same; the study is not credible or replicable. GIGO.

          • Cairenn Day

            His protocols would have gotten a C – in a science project

          • Brian Sandle

            He was replicating the Monsanto experiment and extending it to follow up its results’ suggestion.

            It is replicable. The tumors part is not conclusive and a new study could look into that. But some of the biochemistry is conclusive and should check.

          • He carried out long-term studies with SD rats. His expt design was horrible, as were his conclusions. There was also no dose-response seen between the treated groups, yet conclusions were drawn. The whole paper is a POS, and any valid info that *may* have otherwise come out of it is invalidated by the rest of the shoddy work.

            I’m curious which biochemistry you found to be conclusive.

            Let someone else design a proper set of experiments and we can try again. This one is worthless from start to finish.

          • AutismDadd

            Sounds like regular science to me.

          • I think the key words here are “to me”. You are not in any sense of the word a scientist or scientifically literate. Therefore, your opinions on how a research study is designed, controlled, and interpreted is really quite irrelevant. The same holds true for the 2 idlots who upvoted your juvenile comment.

          • Peter Olins

            No, this was not a replication, since the same tests and statistical analysis were not performed. Hammond presented a wide range of tests, with mean values and standard deviations, as most people would. Why didn’t Seralini do the same?

            Hammond included controls for all tests. Why did 40% of Seralini’s test animals lack controls?

            Your comment implies that you have already read the relevant papers. If so, please tell us what you consider to be the MOST significant or conclusive biochemical observation in Seralini 2012.

          • leilani

            This website is a Pro-GMO site and full of paid internet trolls. There really is no point in talking to these people thinking their minds could ever be changed, they already know the truth, they just don’t give a darn. Their minds have been bought. I don’t think they believe they have souls. Monsanto please give us the “Names” of your scientists that say their GMO’s and the Pesticides on the GMO food Crops are 100% Safe for Human and Animal Consumption! Give us their Names! Their Studies and all their info! And LABEL the Food You’re all so Dang Proud of! Thank you Brian for being the lone wolf among all of these Monsanto sheep.

          • Brian Sandle

            Thankyou Leilani. I think Larkin has gone a bit quiet. He proclaimed that he would not be feeding children on anything harmful. I pointed out the estrogenic nature of Roundup associated with GMOs and possibly the estrogenic nature of the GMOs themselves and the question of early puberty in girls. Here is an article: click on “look inside” to see precocious puberty in girl children adopted to Sweden from developing countries. Less so from Korea where there is a greater awareness of GMOs.

            http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-2-8178-0543-6_2#page-1

            http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/south-korea.php

          • JP

            Yeah, no. Picking things and saying that RoundUp caused them just because it’s your boogeyman for the day is not proof that RoundUp caused them.

          • Brian Sandle

            The Ministry of Health in NZ advise not to feed babies on soy milk where avoidable. Soy contains plant estrogens. And if produced from GMO soy it has more estrogenic effect because of the Roundup.

            Chinese and Japanese traditionally fermented soy before consumption. That lowers the plant estrogens. (Natto and fluffy tofu) I wonder what it does to the xenoestrogen effect from Roundup.

            “The Xinmin Evening News reported on 22 November 2011 that the rate of
            precocious puberty in Chinese girls has increased 10-fold over the past
            10 years”

            And why do you think the Korean adoptees in Sweden would have less precocious puberty than all the others?

            I believe there has been corruption in the approval process for imports of GMO soy to China.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            What has any of this random drivel to do with Seralini’s disappearing (and reappearing) failed foray into forensic veterinary diagnostics, Brian?

            I think you are taking too much liberty, pushing your luck with Jon’s lenient moderation policy. At some point a chronic blather meister and spammer has to be blocked, for the greater good. So unless you have another on topic conspiracy theory for us to debunk maybe you should retire sportingly to your corner like a good loser?

          • Brian Sandle

            Cows and humans are both mammals. “Blather” meaning usually telling a story that someone did not want out. So if I get blocked that will be an admission, won’t it? Usually the group is very quick to have answers. But since I have broguth up the precocious puberty angle of estrogenic food discussion has gone quiet, basically except for your approach now,

            Larkin says he does not want to hurt children. If you block me he won’t get a chance to say that precocious puberty has nothing to do with xenoestrogens in the diet.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            All well and good except you’ve diverted this thread entirely off topic with your spamming. I suspect there is no end to random rants you could choose from to spam this site. Not only do I suspect it, I anticipate it with the same enthusiasm I might anticipate a long weekend of cancelled flights stuck at an airport. Thanks for all the wooden nickels Brian, thanks one hell of a lot.

          • JP

            You’ve brought up a non sequitur. Congratulations.

          • agscienceliterate

            Blather is babbling on incessantly in nonsensical and irrelevant and inarticulate attempts to make a confused point that obfuscates and avoids the original point.
            Comments about dead cows? Comments about toxicity to livestock? Citations for those comments? Bring it on.

          • leilani

            Who’s a Spammer? “Farmer with a Dell” I’ve seen you on many pro-GMO sites, would that make you a spammer? lol.. or would you rather be labeled a troll / shill ? for Big Ag? Monsanto and the likes? Biotech-wreckology!

          • JP

            Since the glyphosate residues on soy products are so little as to be irrelevant, it’s not anything you have to worry your little tinfoil hatted head about.

          • Peter Olins

            Traces of glyphosate have been found in U.S. soy sauce, but it was undetected in soy milk and tofu.

            http://omicsonline.org/open-access/survey-of-glyphosate-residues-in-honey-corn-and-soy-products-2161-0525.1000249.php?aid=36354

          • leilani

            “Tinfoil Hatted Head?” Really? lol… you sound a little perturbed there, yay!! Good Job Brian Sandle. poor, poor, JP!

          • JP

            Nope, not perturbed it all. Just calling it like it is.

          • agscienceliterate

            Leilani, it is pro-science, which does indeed show the safety and efficacy of GE crops. Full of paid internet trolls? I know I have been told I am intelligent and that my posts are insightful, but so far I haven’t been paid. Can you help me arrange payment? As other people here have pointed out, seed companies don’t need to shill as they have plenty of business from farmers.
            I don’t have a soul, and I don’t believe in a god.
            It’s not Monsanto you need to be looking for studies from. Go to genera.biofortified.org, an independent nonprofit organization, for info on the thousands of studies.
            Labeling is only a political goal of activists. Without value in terms of consumer information, labels are useless. That is why voters have rejected labeling in the last 4 ballot elections.
            If you have any info that those of us who support sustainable biotech are paid trolls, I strongly encourage you to disclose that information.

          • leilani

            You are a “troll” it’s what you do. I’d make a wager you get paid like Bronsanto admits he does here from Hawaii. Go look him up, I’m sure you know his 1st and last name, have fun, you two will get along perfectly. Why would you “push” for built in poison food crops, that can be sprayed with herbicides and pesticides 1 day before harvest? Poison that the world health organization says probably causes cancers? Scientists, geneticists and doctors say it causes deadly diseases. Pushing Poison Food is Evil IMHO.

          • Guest

            No, leilani, Bronson Kaahui is not paid by anyone to express his pro-GE views.

            No, the WHO did not say what you think they said.

          • leilani

            No, Guest.. lol..
            Funny how you know Bronson’s last name, you must be employed by Biotech as well. Busted. lmao.

            Even though biotech tried to make the WHO change their facts through wording a year later at the joint FAO/JMPO meeting to satisfy biotech for greed’s sake, it doesn’t matter.

            Glyphosate, Malathion, Diazanon still cause cancer if ingested, inhaled or injected depending on quantity.

            Words, words, words, words, words… it doesn’t matter, you get sick eating poison on your food for life and what’s worse is we don’t even have a choice because biotech is the leader in not wanting you to know what you purchase to feed your family, they are against “LABELING GMO’s.”

            Here are the Frequently Asked Questions from The WHO.

            aka “The World Health Organization.”

            Glyphosate, Malathion and Diazanon May Induce Cancers.
            http://www.who.int/foodsafety/faq/en/

          • agscienceliterate

            You would lose that wager. Hope you didn’t bet more than a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Who would pay me for my brilliant comments? (Thank you for your vote of confidence about my excellent, pay-worthy posts!). Monsanto? Bayer? Syngenta? Do they all have a joint account so that if I mention anything positive about the biotech industry, without naming one of their companies, I get a combined check from all three of them?
            You are inaccurate, as usual, about WHO. It was only one branch of WHO, the IARC, which in listing glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” put it in the same category as sunlight and coffee. Yawn. That IARC statement has been challenged by numerous scientists since that statement. Get your facts straight.
            What deadly diseases? And which scientists, geneticists, and doctors say GE foods cause them? Name some of them. Mention Seralini again and you have shown the shallowness of your statements. Also, you will not be credible if you list Internet woomasters like Oz, Mercola, Wolf, Jeffrey Smith, or Food Babe as your sources of reference.
            If you believe GE foods are “evil,” you can eat organic or non-GMO certified. (Do I get paid by organic shills from the $70 billion organic industry to recommend that you eat organic food? Yay! I should get double-paid by the organic AND biotech sides, then!)

          • agscienceliterate

            Leilani, please show any proof that this site is “full of paid internet trolls.” Do you seriously believe that people, such as myself, would not post relative to GE foods and their benefits, unless we were paid to do so? Do you really think my posts, and those of others here who support biotech, are worthy of payment? (Thank you!). Do you really think seed companies need to hire “shills” to promote their business, when farmers are buying more and more GE seeds? Do you really believe that farmers only buy Monsanto GE seeds? Many seed companies now sell GE seeds. Do you think they all coordinate to pay “shills” who post on GLP and other sites?

            As you have been told before, in science, there is no way to show by any entity that anything on or off the planet is “100% safe.” If that were the standard, you would certainly not be eating organic food. However, there are many studies on the safety of GE crops to animals and humans, which are listed on the nonprofit site genera.biofortified.org . If you genuinely have any curiousity about GE safety, you will certainlydo some research on the issue. If you do not, then you will continue to post as usual, based on unreliable Internet and blog pseudo-science. Your choice.

            Although you are both in the same camp, let me advise you that Brian is really not a reliable go-to on this issue, for facts about Seralini or GE safety.

          • Guest

            You are projecting your belief system and world view upon others, without evidence to back up such an action. Seek professional help.

          • agscienceliterate

            Leilani, you have no proof of your spurious claims about shills. The fact that there are many who post who support biotech GE crops without being paid to do so seems to be beyond your grasp.
            Monsanto is only one seller of GE seeds, by the way. And they also sell conventional and organic seeds.
            If you want studies (and no study of anything can ever “prove” anything to be 100% safe — if that is your standard, don’t eat organic), look up the many studies on safety at genera.biofortified.org .

          • JohnL

            I disagree. Doing bad science is fraud.

          • agscienceliterate

            I see your point, John. Especially when the researcher supposedly knows better, as an alleged “scientist.” Point well taken. Did Seralini really not know better, and is therefore utterly incompetent? I am not a research scientist, but I certainly recognize the many ways in which his study is seriously flawed. Any serious high school science student could do the same. Or did he know better, and set it up to fail scientifically, but to show results confirming his preconceived biases, knowing that those with unscientific minds and similar preconceived biases would run with his story?

          • JohnL

            Exactly. One could not prove fraud but it seems the study was designed to decieve. Seralini has a history of bad science.

          • Loren Eaton

            As I understand it, it is well known amongst scientists that do this kind of testing that those rats are highly prone to tumors during the time frame that Seralini CHOSE to perform his studies. Knowingly setting up a study where it is highly likely that your controls will behave the same as your treatment population is either amateur hour or, as we’ve heard, fraud. Instead of just doing it the right way, he is (as Walter Mathau said in JFK) “pickin’ gnat $*() out of pepper.”

          • AutismDadd

            Science without bias??? Does not exist and NEVER will.

          • agscienceliterate

            AD, it appears you don’t support any kind of science, except your own unscientific preconceived biases. From your own profile: “Vaccines Cause Autism/ Pro-Vacs are liars. Seek and Destroy. Put my foot where no foot has gone before and punt vaccine injury advocates through their moving goalposts.” If I am incorrect, please correct me: what kind of scientific evidence do you consider credible?

          • AutismDadd

            I don’t support science that is tainted, who would? Vaccines are marketed as safe and effective. Both not correct. We are told adverse events are rare and mild. Not correct. We are told that because only a small number are harmed its acceptable. NOT acceptable. We are told to report to VAERS who have a disclaimer saying reports mean nothing. We have the NVICP and 60% of claims are rejected. The 40% are treated like criminals and their positive verdicts called shams based on easy terms laid out. BUT we are to trust the science and the messengers.

          • agscienceliterate

            I repeat my question. What science would you support on vaccines or genetically engineered food? Be specific – don’t tell me your conspiracy theories about why you don’t trust anybody on science. What scientific entities would you trust, and why?

          • AutismDadd

            What would you recommend?

          • Warren Lauzon

            Doing it is not fraud. Passing it off as real science is fraud.

        • Wackes Seppi

          “The court decided there was no evidence of fraud…”

          Wrong. The Court decided on another basis.

          • cable1977

            Feel free to specifically detail what the basis was. Without that, your comment really isn’t very useful.

          • Wackes Seppi

            http://www.infogm.org/5878-ogm-journaliste-marianne-condamne-pour-diffamation

            Anti-GMO website… Report seems fair and accurate.

          • cable1977

            That website backs up my claim.

            From the google translation of the webpage:

            “The judge concluded: “Under these conditions, it is necessary to estimate the precise allocation of scientific fraud is unsupported by sufficient element, as the defendants can not therefore usefully plead their good faith and must be convicted of public defamation against a public official.”

            The ruling concluded that the accusations of fraud were unsupported by the evidence which is completely consistent with what I stated above. That webpage also notes that the judge points out that critcism of Seralini was based in the fact that he was a bad scientist, not a fraudulent one, and that the only “fraud” accusation came from a Forbes article and was unsupported by the facts.

            So, overall, that article is completely consistent with my above claims noting that the defamation lawsuit was specifically about charges of fraud and had nothing to do with the overall scientific merit of Seralini’s claims.

        • Warren Lauzon

          So fraud or total incompetence – which is a better label to have?

          • AutismDadd

            They are not the same/

          • Warren Lauzon

            Which is what I said. But you can have both.

      • Stuart M.

        Why are you telling me this? To intimidate me? Well, it’s always fascinating to follow up on the claims of the anti-GMO Food Nazis and Wikipedia doesn’t disappoint. It tells us that Seralini won his libel suit against someone who had alleged Seralini’s research was funded by Greenpeace, a notorious anti-GMO outfit. Oh, and what was the award in that Seralini libel case? 1 Euro! That about says it all!

        • Brian Sandle

          I have linked to the High Court case from last year if you read through the thread. The official is awaiting sentence. I am only defending the truth but if you feel intimidated that says something.

    • Wackes Seppi

      Caen, not Nice.

      It does not change much, except that it is more accurate.

      • Stuart M.

        Thank you. Somewhere along the line I read he was at Nice U. I stand corrected and my apologies to Nice University.

  • Larkin Curtis Hannah

    I can’t get beyond the statement: “This study was not designed as a scientific experiment.” How on earth does anyone get “non-science” published as science? How many shots can Seralini’a foot take?

    • JP

      It’s kind of the same as the cop-out the anti-biotech side uses for his rat tumor study – “it wasn’t a cancer study, it was a toxicity study, so they didn’t have to use standards for cancer study, but… JUST LOOK AT THOSE TUMORS!”

      • Brian Sandle

        All the tumors were photographed as a record of how the animals were treated, as well as part of normal reporting. Had they not been displayed I imagine you would have been complaining loudly about concealment of animal cruelty. The ethical protocol was followed.

        Not all tumors are cancer.

        Cancer studies only require more animals than toxicology studies to be sure cancer is not occurring, because cancer would be a more rare event. That tumors appeared in a smaller group is not evidence that can be ignored.

        The laugh is on you JP.

        • JP

          So, basically, you’re proving my point exactly? And then saying somehow the laugh is on me?

          OK, then.

          • Brian Sandle

            JP I think you were trying to create the impression that tumors are cancers. I do not think the word, “cancer,” was used in the paper.

            As with anything the news media go for what they think will catch the eye of the unthinking public.

            About the time the new entrant to the journal’s board arrived from Monsanto, the story was made up that Seralini was a fraud because he did not use enough animals to prove cancer, (which the experiment was not about.) Later the story was toned down: the retraction was then said to have been because the results were “inconclusive.”

          • JP

            ….. You’re still proving my point.

            Seralini’s study, as you say, was not sufficient to prove that the GMO version of the corn causes cancer. But that’s exactly what the anti crowd trumpets it as even today.

            Which, again, is my point exactly.

          • Brian Sandle

            Maybe the anti-GMO crowd or maybe some entity still setting up a straw man to shoot down.

          • JP

            Ah, so you’re going to play the Conspiracy Inception game then, hmm?

          • Brian Sandle

            No, all research needs to specify interests.

          • JP

            Your point?

          • Brian Sandle

            That if I am in a company whose shares have dropped 20 – 25% in a year, would I be keen to be scrupulous about protecting bees which might give competitors an advantage?

          • JP

            So in other words, yes, you are positing a conspiracy. Again, thank you for proving my point.

          • Brian Sandle

            No just normal business.

          • JP

            Not really. But I suppose you can believe that if it helps your narrative.

          • gmoeater

            Now you’re off on bees? Show what garbage you are reading, and I’ll show you some credible bee study info. Unless you are saying Seralini shows that glyphosate also causes tumors in bees. You are a very confused activist.

          • Brian Sandle

            Bees were a reply to a neonics comment above.

          • There is no neonics comment above. You make no sense and you put strange and irrelevant factoids into your comments, like the one about New Zealand signing the TPP 17,000 days after the Apollo 11 moon landing. I put it to you that you are absolutely barking mad. Are you on medication? Are you in therapy? For your own sake, please get professional help.

          • Brian Sandle

            Loser Captain Moonlight

            gmoeater to Farmer with a Dell

            16 hours ago:

            ” Unfortunately, they sometimes influence public policy with unnecessary bans on neonics”

            Above when you sort with older stuff at top.

            Annexation of moon 20 July 1969. Twelve country reps come to NZ to sign TPPA on 4 Feb 2016. Here is a days between calculator you can prove for yourself the days between:

            https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjN0M2Syc7KAhXJxIMKHRZ_BI4QFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeanddate.com%2Fdate%2Fduration.html&usg=AFQjCNGKF6kjyc3wNsDbvp3T4sARDJXiUA&sig2=gCebepeFYsTrQDHiuixsMA

            Some gangs use colours or numbers as their mark. (Wiki.) Have a think about 17 or 7. And 4th Feb is 7 months after Independence Day

          • Some gangs use colours or numbers as their mark. (Wiki.) Have a think about 17 or 7. And 4th Feb is 7 months after Independence Day

            Could you explain what you mean. I can’t make any sense out of this paragraph.

          • Brian Sandle

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_colors

            perhaps click on “criminal street gangs,” in that link. “Folk Nation” gang like numbers 7 & 4. I am not claiming it’s the same lot.

            When MH17 was “implanted” in Ukrainian soil it was 7/7/14, 17 years after its first flight 7/7/97.

            I just feel the TPPA which transfers democratic power to corporate tribunals, ought to be thought about for USA as well as the other 11 countries. The proposed signing date is also 239 years and 7 months after USA original Independence. And 239 is a special number for those into numbers (Wiki).

            Gangs seek supremacy partly noting their presence with graffiti signatures which may contain numbers.

            The jury is out on whether I am away with the fairies or whether there is something in the 4 Feb date. Monsanto also seeks to own life itself with patented genes.

          • Brian, what does this mean:

            (Wiki.) Have a think about 17 or 7.

            Why have you written “Wiki” in brackets? What does Wiki have to do with 17 and 7? We can’t learn about these things if you do not explain them.

          • Brian Sandle

            I use (Wiki) as a short hand way of saying search wiki and in that case I put it after “gangs”. So google bing or whatever wiki gangs and I have already given the relevant Wikipedia result URL.

            I also suggest to google wiki 239. My shorthand takes less space than putting the URL, but here is the result:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/239_%28number%29

            So far I had not searched wiki 17, thanks.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Oh…Wikipedia, well there’s your problem Brian, right there. By relying on Wikipedia you’re immersing yourself in liquid dung, dipped 7 to the 17th time by now, if I’m any judge.

            Do yourself a favor Brian. Towel off and switch to using only Google Scholar for your searches from now on. You will then be bombarded less intensely with woo and nonsense, perhaps you can then get yourself reoriented. You will thank me later buddy.

            It’s unpleasant watching someone’s mind melt down before your own eyes. You try to feel compassion but the fear and loathing won’t let you. It’s like some sort of defense reflex.

          • Peter Olins

            Hi FWD. I have found Wikipedia to be surprisingly accurate in covering the areas of science that I am personally most familiar with, and it’s a great start for people who are not experienced in a given area.

            Google Scholar is obviously useful if you are already familiar with scientific research, but I suspect it is of limited value to the average person. One advantage is that there are sometimes links to full versions of papers that would normally be behind a paywall.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            I agree Peter, for the most part. I often hit Wikipedia to begin scanning a topic. But keep in mind on Wikipedia anyone can key in any damned thing they want on any page they please. Most of the skanky stuff is eventually edited out, of course, but try it some time if you don’t mind having your IP address added to an unsecure list somewhere. Also a lot of Wikipedia pages lean hard toward pseudoscience and woo in the first place, occasionally with outside links to some real loopy echo chambers. Those wiki pages will usually be labeled “Needs more references” or some such innocuous warning. Hmmm, I wonder how one goes about lobbying for warnings to be placed on dubious Wikipedia pages?

            Where the rubber meets the road I still recommend Google Scholar. It is appropriate not only for someone quite expert in a discipline, but also essential for people who only think they are experts. If more poseurs would use it they might not only be more convincing, they might even be right once in a while. How refreshing that would be!

            For the noobs, Wikipedia is OK but I’d much rather have them come on a site like this and ask someone like you in the comments section for the basic lowdown on a subject. That doesn’t happen often enough, not nearly.

            Cheers
            FWAD

          • Brian,

            what is the significance of the number 20,000 and the Apollo 11 moon landing. I think you know more than you are letting on. Tell us the truth, Brian. What do you know?!

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Wow Cap’n, well done! Sussed out the full profile of the anti-GMO activist with this one. They’re all the same — they start out reciting the agenda talking points fluently enough but when you kick the tires a little crazy oozes out and when you pop open the hood, yikes!

            I’ve said it before — the anti-GMO movement is the new home of those intrepid souls who previously kept us fully apprised of events such as UFO abductions and Elvis sightings. Now it’s food and GMO on their minds, mostly. Do you suppose it was crop circles that first attracted them to us?

          • agscienceliterate

            Good grief, Brian. This is not science. Your post is numerology witchcraft fantasy computer game nonsense. Please post relevant scientific citations regarding Seralini’s poorly-done studies. You have gone around the bend on this one.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            I guess Brian likes to cast a wide seine and troll deep. No telling what sort of bizarre bottom feeders he’s snagged with that technique. But what does he do with them after he catches them? Too creepy to contemplate.

          • Brian Sandle

            agscienceliterate, please read this whole article first:

            http://www.enveurope.com/content/27/1/19

            A little quote from it:

            “the central findings of the study, that Roundup and NK603 together and individually
            caused hepatic and renal damage in the exposed Sprague–Dawley rats, are not inconclusive.”

            Captain Moonlight seemed interested. I don’t think you have read the whole thread, have you?

        • Larkin Curtis Hannah

          Brian, you do realize that the rat line used in these studies was specifially selected to PRODUCE tumors. Look at the control data. Those animals had tumors also. And at a rate not statistically different from those animals fed GMO feeds. The paper was retracted, remember?

          • Brian Sandle

            The experimental results were in the toxicology (biochemical) measurements. Monsanto and Seralini both chose the same rat breed. Monsanto’s 3-month experiment raised some issue and Seralini furthered that.

            The paper was retracted but the Committee on Public Ethics contacted the publisher Elsevier, who required their journal Food and Chemcial Toxicology to publish a reply. A small extract from that:

            “In our article, the conclusions of
            long-term NK603 and Roundup toxicities came from the statistically highly discriminant findings at the biochemical level in treated groups in comparison to controls, because these findings do correspond in an blinded analysis to the pathologies observed in organs, that were in turn linked to the deaths by anatomopathologists. GM NK603 and R cannot be regarded as safe to date”

            http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Seralinial-AnswersCritics-FCT_2013.pdf

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            There are no data in the paper from which you pulled a sentence from the abstract. So how can you say something is statistically significant when there are no data in the paper to substantiate the claim? — another shot in Serelin’a foot!!

          • Brian Sandle

            The paper is a reply, but I think they did give out their data later on request.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            The data in the original report was not statistically different, one of the reasons it was retracted.

          • Brian Sandle

            different to what?

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            to the non-GMO control.

          • Peter Olins

            It amazes me that on his personal website, Seralini still stands by his claims of widespread toxicity, generation of tumors, and premature death, as a consequence of GM corn or glyphosate.

            For glyphosate, he claims that even the minute levels found in drinking water
            “…still caused in [sic] increase in mortality, tumours, and organ damage.”

            I suspect that the vast majority of people interested in this topic would believe what’s on his website, but not actually read the paper, and I doubt whether the retraction of the 2012 paper significantly reduced the damage caused by his flawed work.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            And are you saying this paper to cite was peer-reviewed? It is a response to critical comments. I seriously doubt it was reviewed.

          • Brian Sandle

            It is a review of the criticism against the paper. Was the criticism peer reviewed?

          • Guest

            Yes, the criticisms came from multiple independent academics.

        • gmoeater

          And displaying them did indeed demonstrate animal cruelty. In scientific experiments, rat tumors are discoverable when they are very small. At that time, responsible researchers humanely destroy the animals. But small tumors do not make good fearmongering press. No, these a-holes let the tumors develop painfully and unnecessarily huge in these Seralini rats, solely for the specific purpose of horrific photographs. That absolutely IS animal cruelty, and far beyond the protocols of responsible scientific investigation using live animals.

          • Brian Sandle

            “The blood (1 mL) and urine samples were coded and the measurement of biochemical parameters also blind, as were the decisions of euthanasia to avoid suffering in accordance with precise regulatory ethical rules (hemorrhages, impossibility to drink and eat, large tumors over 25% body weight because they provoke mortality.”

            Such a study as this has the potential to work towards ruling in or out about about aspects of the effects of varying diets on the current obesity epidemic,is my thought. Many horrible experiments are done in the name of science, sewing up kittens eyes, &c. Now do you say all the results of that cruel research must consequently be ignored?

    • Farmer with a Dell

      Perhaps it was a mix up in the translation from French to German to English and back. The disclaimer was probably meant to read: “This paper is a witch hunt masquerading as a study”
      These unavoidable mistakes will happen, even with the most reputable of pay-to-publish urinals like “Scholarly Journal”.

    • Brian Sandle

      You need to understand the difference between observational and experimental science. In experimental science the scientist designs a protocol in advance with a control group and experimental group.

      Seralini is not quite the best at translating French to English. They mean this was observational, not experimental research, where they say:

      “On an independent modern farm followed by certified veterinarians, dairy cows (mean of 62 per year)
      were maintained in optimized milk production for 3 years each. From 1997 to 2002, just after the
      commercial release of the first GMO (genetically modified organism) in Europe, genetically modified
      (GM) Bt176 maize grown on the farm was progressively introduced in controlled diets. The results are
      described in the following account, which has an historical value as it is the longest and first on-farm
      observation of mammals, performed by an experienced farmer and veterinarians, during a period of
      unusual pathological problems in cows receiving a GMO-rich diet. Thus it was not designed as a
      scientific experiment.”

      • Larkin Curtis Hannah

        Brian, I am not sure what your point is. If you want to test a Bt corn, you set up an experiment where you feed Bt corn and an isoline maize line that lacks the Bt gene. You then look for differences. Nothing else bears on whether BT is having an effect on milk production. Now if other dairy farmers around the world starting having problems when BT corn came out, then there would be something to talk about. On our home farm, we raise 13,000 hogs/year. Before 1996, the hogs ate non-GMO feed. Now it is 100% GMO feed. Production has never been better. No drop in feed efficiency, animals sold, etc. And no tumors when they are butchered. Again, Serelina is a fraud.

        • Farmer with a Dell

          Same observation from the dairy side of the equation. Herd health and performance, milk quality, all continue to improve as GMO feeds have been introduced. No closer ” on-farm observation of mammals, performed by an experienced farmer and veterinarians” is practical than what we routinely log around here. We don’t miss too much.

          Not saying these improvements in livestock performance are due to GMO feed, merely reporting no observable adverse effects. We use GMO plant genetics strategically and without hesitation. GMO corn and beans have let us convert a lot of acres to no-till, sparing a lot of tractor fuel, wear and tear on equipment, labor hours, not to mention further reductions in soil erosion. All that and cows are happier and healthier than ever. What’s not to love about any of that?

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Thanks. Glad to hear from a farmer. My family has a large farming operation in Indiana and I spend as much time there as I can. My day job is a Professor of Plant Molecular Biology at the University of Florida (same department as Kevin Folta).

          • gmoeater

            You guys are both heroes. (You and Kevin)

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            thanks for the comment. Kevin is really good at this stuff. I learn lots from him about how to make a point. Sometimes, I think I am way too blunt!!

          • gmoeater

            You both are excellent communicators on GE technology and on fighting unscientific assertions. Sometimes bluntness is very appropriate! Thanks for commenting as much as you do.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            And thank you. I think you are more active than I.

          • Brian Sandle

            Are you worried about grant money from Monsanto given their share price was $125 last Feb and $88 now?

          • JP

            Getting dangerously close to that shill gambit there, bud :)

          • Jackson

            He’s already into the “Companies that develop GMOs are intentionally killing all the bees to increase market share” gambit, so what’s a little shill gambit on the side?

          • Brian Sandle

            I don’t conform to the usual definition of shill.

            Any scientist publishing a paper can have it retracted if they do not specify competing interests.

          • JP

            So then, what exactly is your point in bringing up Monsanto’s stock price to a University of Florida professor?

          • Brian Sandle

            Just an opportunity to look at grants since they should be acknowledged.

          • JP

            Still don’t see the point in the context of this discussion. You’re really reaching for straws at this point.

          • Brian Sandle

            Because what he says here may be biased.

          • JP

            Because Monsanto’s stock is down and they may get grants from the company? Yeah, you’re still grasping at straws.

          • gmoeater

            Now you’re off on the $25 k educational grant Kevin Folta received, which paid for travel and some food. Didn’t take a penny of it himself. Contrast that with the $$$$$ that $70 Billion Big Organic pays shill Charles Benbrook, if you’re fishing for some little conspiracy thing because you loathe Monsanto.
            And stay on point, rather than moving goalposts of discussion every 30 seconds. You show that you have no idea what you believe, and are just shooting from the hip.

          • Brian Sandle

            I am just having trouble relating here where interests do not have to be declared.

          • JP

            Haven’t seen you declare any of your interests. Whereas, you know Larkin’s name and position and since universities are public institutions, you could easily look up grant money.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Brian is an unabashed Seralini apologist and erstwhile preacher of agroecology woo. It would be interesting to learn how Brian earns the money he gets.

            Never happens with these trolls. Come to the point where they need to put up or shut up and they implode on themselves.

          • Brian Sandle

            New Zealand is just on the point of hosting (on Feb 4. 17,000 days after the Apollo 11 moon landing) the signing of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.

            One of the corporates who would gain much would be Monsanto, and small farmers who have earned from our alternative crops/animals/produce would lose.

            Fortunately enough US Democrats don’t want it and same with Republicans though for the other reason, that it does not give enough to corporates.

            It’s a fight for life.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Nice, your reply, Brian, has absolutely nothing to do with explaining who pays you to flame this blog or how you earn the money you get otherwise.

            The usual diversionary blather, just talking out of your imploded ass Brian. Heh, it gives your sound a peculiar sort of nasal quality…with a certain high pitched flatulence-like overtone. Not very becoming, but amusing as hell for the rest of us, heh, heh.

          • Brian Sandle

            I used to earn my money from music. Lot of feeling for Ukraine area. I could be wrong but I understand the Ukrainians did not want to fight their brothers, and mercenaries were seen there who also have been employed by Monsanto. Monsanto now have annexed Ukraine with GMOs.

          • Jackson

            Monsanto now have annexed Ukraine

            Just pants on head crazy.

          • Brian Sandle

            China put much investment into getting GMO-free crops from Ukraine. They don’t want their food genes owned by outsiders. They are feeding their military on GMO-free food.

            The TPPA corporate block has said its goal is to challenge China.

            So annexing Ukraine with GMOs is a win against China, though I’m not sure the area of Ukraine they invested in. Whatever forces were hostile in Ukraine have been putting land-mines in the farms making it difficult to farm.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            “They don’t want their food genes owned by outsiders”

            Oh, I doubt China is too worried about Western patent infringement. They are notorious for pirating DVDs and CDs. In fact they seem to prefer copyrighted material — so much more lucrative to plagiarize.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well, there you go, live and learn. Who would have guessed a washed up song monger would turn out to be an agricultural prodigy, would have all the easy dreamy answers to complex real world problems? Heh, just make up a few stanzas, a couple of verses of nonsense and food springs effortlessly from the undisturbed earth! It’s magic, uh well no, it’s just agroecology sung off key and out of time.

            So now we know. You can’t make this crap up!

          • Farmer with a Dell

          • Guest

            It would not surprise me if you don’t earn your money from music anymore because those big evil recording industry corporations sued you & pubs for playing covers of music in their establishments, which is not fair because music and words are part of nature and those big evil corporations shouldn’t be allowed to copyright (which is a patent which never expires) those natural words and notes that any child anywhere could create! Let’s take down the evil recording industry corporations for the sake of the children!!!!!

          • Brian Sandle

            In music you can’t stick a coupled of notes in someone else’s tune and claim it as your own.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            In genetic engineering that unique gene sequence IS the copyrighted song, the chromosome is the patented sound system and the organism is the trademarked concert hall altogether to produce a copyrighted performance. Not much of a performance until you inject some nifty new material, then…magic!

            You song mongers trample each other to copyright and trademark that sort of stuff, you know you do. And some of you mooch around the fringes pirating and plagiarizing the stuff, and you know a little bit about that too, I suspect.

          • Brian Sandle

            The unique GMO construct is tiny compared to the genome it is inserted into. Far less than a couple of notes in a tune.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            But, of course, GE is not just “a couple of notes in a tune”. It is a new tune in an album or stage performance. It is a new tune covered by a uniquely talented performer in a singularly appropriate venue to the enjoyment of the larger group. The parallels between GE and the music business are obvious if you weren’t such an obstinate ass. Here’s the lowdown on the music analogy, and I shouldn’t have to be informing you of any of this if you ever were much of a professional in the world of music…

            http://www.masurlaw.com/3980/songs-and-records-two-types-of-music-copyrights/

            http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/entertainment/music-copyright.html

            So, squirm and nitpick away to your heart’s content Brian, but this portion of your class is now dismissed. Patent/copyright/trademark law is well established in art and is becoming correspondingly well established in applied molecular biology.

          • Brian Sandle

            I am into classical music. That is a better analogy with the old genomes.

            So someone changes a couple of notes in a Tchaikovsky symphony, then destroys or hides or locks up all the original old copies and charges everyone to record their new tune.

          • JP

            “Destroys or hides or locks up all the original old copies.”

            What exactly are you on about?

          • Guest

            That sounds like something Neil Young would do, fortunately not at all like what occurs with plant patents and biotechnology.

          • Guest

            Thank you for proving my point, and for not acknowledging the rest of the hypocrisies that comprise your world view!

            It’s so much fun handing you rope and watching you hang yourself!

          • Brian Sandle

            The seed companies have been trusted as custodians of the commons seed banks, in our current commercial environment.

            Now they are doing GMOs they are using genetic material from the commons, for drought resistance &c., and attaching a small

            GMO package which allows them to patent and charge for the whole organism, however most of which is part of the commons.

            If you understand the sort of Linux computer software, you may modify existing software but you then may not restrict the use or further modification of what you have done.

          • Guest

            You want more rope?

            Thank you for demonstrating your knowledge of patent law, agriculture, plant breeding, and business for us!

            This is so much fun…

          • Brian Sandle

            Climate resilience in a crop is very complex and depends on big packets of genes. It is far cheaper and quicker to develop drought resistance by conventional selection. But you are disappointed you could not do it by transgenics so you stick a patentable gene in.

            As I posted in an article to Larkin organics is doing better than transgenics.

            Transgenics scientists used to label most og the genome as “junk DNA,” and worked on that principle with their inserted promoters probably disturbing something they thought was only non-coding DNA from past evolution.

            They were wrong. Fun – NOT.

          • agscienceliterate

            Absolute rubbish on all points, Brian. Conventional selection is much, much slower than GE technology. That is why they do it. Again, telling you yet again, seeds have been patented since 1930. Organics are not doing “better” than GE. “Probably disturbing something….” Nonsense.
            You are wrong. Fun.

          • Brian Sandle
          • Guest

            Brian Sandle burbling.

          • Brian Sandle

            So what do you think about “junk DNA,” then, Guest? Since you say that Scientific American magazine article about it is burbling.

            Your comment seems to demonstrate the approach of brushing it off when you get something wrong. Dealing with the basis of life needs more accountability.

          • Guest

            Interesting, when responded to in the exact same fashion as you have responded to others, you have a problem with it. Please take the time to reflect upon this, it will help you begin the process of emotional and psychological growth.

          • agscienceliterate

            Brian, this article on “junk DNA” does not pertain to the differences and efficiencies of GE technology over conventional crop breeding.
            The gene itself is not patented. The resulting new organism can be patented.

          • Brian Sandle

            The article points to the information bank in what gmo scinetists have cavalierly called “junk dna,” not worrying what they may be doing to it, and leaving the mess for the organic farmers to clean up.

            Organics allows organisms to choose what combinations genes to unsilence or silence and other things I do not understand to cope with drought, flood, high and low temperatures and insect and bacterial and viral pests.

            This is from another article by the same author who I cited for Larkin: “Losses of 1 Mg SOM [soil organic material]

            per hectare were associated with a

            decrease in wheat yield of approximately 40 kg/ha. These

            results demonstrate the importance of using cultural practices

            that enhance SOM and thus minimize losses of soil organic C

            in semiarid environments (Diaz-Zorita et al.1999).

            In what is the longest running, side-by-side comparison of

            organic and chemical agriculture in the USA, researchers have

            compared since 1981 the performance of corn and soybean

            during the transition from chemical to organic agriculture

            (Rodale Institute 2012). They found that organic corn yields

            were 31 % higher than conventional in years of drought.

            These drought yields are remarkable when compared to ge-

            netically engineered “drought tolerant” varieties, which saw

            increases of only 6.7 to 13.3 % over conventional (non-

            drought resistant) varieties.”

            http://www.zalf.de/de/forschung/institute/lse/publ/Documents/2015_Publication%20Lana%20et%20al.pdf

          • Guest

            Already discussed.

          • gmoeater

            ?????? Get back into your practice room. Only 12 notes to learn. Easy. Conspiracy doesn’t matter.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Brian learned everything he knows from music, it is all encompassing, music is. What more do you need?

            Here’s the classic tune that certified Brian as a bona fide expert on dairy farming, gave him his impeccable creds as an apologist for Seralini’s toxic-GMO-cow-corn disappearing study…

          • Brian Sandle

            That sort of no-till works for a bit, I guess, till the Roundup builds up and reduces soil microbiology. Why not herd beasts to trample the field and allow the worms to get to work?

            I think GMOs are more estrogenic so may stimulate growth. Can you add fertility as something that has not been affected?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            You obviously have no practical experience in agriculture Brian.

            How many cows would you like me to deliver to trample your lawn and flower garden? I can safely haul 25 – 30 mature animals with a possum belly trailer, so how many trucks should I schedule for your delivery?

            Let’s complete that experiment then you come back and tell me how to farm, Jethro.

          • Brian Sandle

            This does not have to be like trucking bees. Go into agroecology, Keep enough cattle per farm to move about trampling as needed. Cut fertiliser cost. Or use a ribbed roller. Some worms are hurt but they regenerate quickly in good microbiology.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Ah, ha, ha, ha, yes, agroecology, hee, hee, hee… Eggheads without a clue proselytizing recommendations without practical merit.

            Agroecology: Who Needs Science When We Have Storytelling?

            In your dreams Brian! You farm your way (ha,ha, ha…) and my family will farm our way. In our 5th generation, soils and livestock more productive than ever. Nothing succeeds like success.

            So long Brian. Thanks for the wooden nickels, sonny boy.

          • Brian Sandle

            Look it up.

          • Farmer Sue

            Now why in the hell do you think that Roundup affects microbes in the soil? Roundup is an herbicide. Repeat that three times.
            No-till works great. Roundup does not “build up.”
            Why would you fantasize that herds trampling the fields substitute for no-till? That’s, uh, just hoof-tilling. And killing the worms you say you want to get to work. Try stepping on a worm with a hoof and 2000 pounds behind it.
            Seralini is a joke and a quack.

          • Brian Sandle

            Glyphosate is a chelator, and the adjuvants potentiate it. It has also been registered as an antibiotic. I do not think it washes away in the manner claimed.

          • Jackson

            Therefore… What?

          • Martin Greenleaf

            I have had a no til farm in Pennsylvania since 1970. I have used roundup on it since the day it came out. I have used GM seeds since the day they came out. I can show you a graph of yields since 1966 on the farm. The yields are a continuous upward trend. The soil is moist and friable. Earthworms are everywhere. There is very little runoff. How can you ever make a statement like No til may work a little while. No til has been working for millions of years. I have seen very few statements as ludicrous as that !!!!!

          • hyperzombie

            “Why not herd beasts to trample the field and allow the worms to get to work?”
            Hmmm, so you own a livestock transport company? Where do you come up with these ideas? How many herd animals do you think it would take to trample a few million acres of corn fields?

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Roundup doesn’t build up. It binds to soil and then is readily broken down by microbes.

            It’s almost like you’ve never engaged in the vast scientific literature on this subject and instead think press releases from antigmo groups count as “research”

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Not saying these improvements in livestock performance are due to GMO feed
            Correct for the past, but Up Next: Low lignin alfalfa that will improve livestock performance, blight resistant potatoes that will be a huge benefit for production + reduce weekly blight spray during the last part of the growing season. Plus many more benefits from other crops.

            We’re just scratching the surface of beneficial GMO traits.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Agree. The future of GE technology looks bright from where I’m standing.

            We actually did see some benefit to cow feed from GMO corn, however slight. We work a couple of farms with heavy soil, wet spring & fall, apt to be dry all summer. Seldom made grain there and had to chop and haul a long distance to make an inconsistent and mediocre silage. Used to dread seeing the boys truck that in here, ensile it with our better corn and have to feed it all the next year.

            Once they figured out how to get no-till to fill a good even stand the planting of those farms became timely and the reduced soil compaction really seemed to help bring the crop along so it’s been taken off as grain with an acceptable test weight every season since. One less inconsistency in our feeding program…certainly didn’t hurt anything.

        • Brian Sandle

          Hogs are not ruminants. Anyway would you be prepared to do an experiment with that withdrawn GMO event? Experimental research on this event seems rather lacking.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            what are you suggesting, specifically?

          • Brian Sandle

            The protocol you suggested.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            We did that experiment with hogs already, as I described in my previous post.

          • Brian Sandle

            which event?

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            We have used several transgenes in both corn and soybeans. I know we have raised Syngenta corn and soybeans so perhaps we have used it.

          • Brian Sandle

            Liberty Link?

          • Brian Sandle

            Sorry misread, I think I should have said Bt176
            NaturGard KnockOut™, Maximizer™, not Liberty Link.

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            See note from Farmer with a Dell. How common is it for a dairy farmer to have a problem with a GMO?

          • Brian Sandle

            You are suggesting then that all GMOs are OK?

          • Larkin Curtis Hannah

            Those that have been through the approval process and are on the market, yes. There is no credible evidence that there is a problem.

          • Brian Sandle

            The event that Seralini’s experiment was about is not on the market now.

      • Wackes Seppi

        “On an independent modern farm followed by certified veterinarians, dairy cows (mean of 62 per year) were maintained in optimized milk production for 3 years each..”

        And one of the cows at issue was… 21 years old when she died.

        Look for the real facts!

  • Ray E.

    Can you tell me more about the “Epigenetics Literacy Project” ?

    … googling brings me back to GLP.

    • Nicholas Staropoli

      Thanks for interest! Its an upcoming project. Look for more about it in coming months!

  • mem_somerville

    Hey, c’mon, this takes talent. It’s not easy to find a journal that will vaporize the week after you publish.

    We’ll be laughing about this for years. Good times.

    • Brian Sandle

      It appears the domain for the journal had been activated on Jan 26, 2011, and must have been for a five year term, which Seralini either did not know or forgot.

      • Guest

        “must have been”… please provide proof. In any case, the timing is quite remarkable, wouldn’t you say?

        • Verna Lang

          Remarkable only in the fact that when Seralini was sorting through the dregs of the publishing world to pay a journal to publish his “This study was not designed as a scientific experiment” work, he chose one that proved to be fly-by-night as well as predatory.

          • Brian Sandle

            already discussed.

          • Verna Lang

            Already discussed? A failure this epic will never go away.

          • Brian Sandle

            Verna please see my reply to Larkin Curtis Hannah 15 hours ago

            “You need to understand the difference between observational and
            experimental science. In experimental science the scientist designs a
            protocol in advance with a control group and experimental group….”

            And a failure to remember to re-register after 5 years, does that mean fly-by-night?

          • Verna Lang

            Thanks for the edumacation. After that lecture, from the self-appointed expert in the room, should I take my PhD in Biochemistry off the wall and burn it? Or perhaps I should sell it as an antique, since the PhD is probably older than your are? Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs!

          • Brian Sandle

            Verna you are trying to say an observational study of historical data has no value, are you?

            Some researchers may not bother to note in their papers that their observational research, such as for epidemics, is not experimental. They may just leave it for the reader to figure for themselves that they did not/could not start with a control group and an experimental group for which they made an experimental change.

            Seralini has made it clear, for this study, so as there is no confusion.

            Here is a contrast of the observational and experimental approaches:

            http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050067

            We have been discussing two Seralini studies. The earlier one is a treatment experiment comparing control and experimental groups. The later one is exploratory observational, looking for a cause.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Seralini’s earlier study was a botched or fudged laboratory experiment enhanced with misleading report and press releases to align with his predetermined agenda. The later one was simply a laughable bungling of veterinary diagnostics, it was no “observational study” — not case-control, not retrospective cohort, not prospective cohort — it was pure bullshit speculation of cause and effect in a situation grossly misunderstood by Seralini from the beginning. Both were malpractice.

            Seralini’s earlier study was sloppy science at best, the later one was quackery, pure and simple.

          • Brian Sandle

            One official has been convicted in the High Court in 2015 and is awaiting sentence already as a result of Seralini’s legal action.

            I suppose you are a sock puppet and think you can escape.

            “it was no “observational study” — not case-control, not retrospective cohort, not prospective cohort”

            How could he have done that with the more than decade old data?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Ah, so I’m getting a little too close to where you live, eh, a little too clear with the truth of the matter? Time for you to switch from making bogus claims and preposterous conspiracy theories to making idle threats? Ha, you zealots are all alike — puffed full of your own excrement until someone comes along and pierces your pompous party mask exterior. Then whine and cry and threaten. Around here we call that “bullshit and gunsmoke”, the unmistakable fingerprint of a loser, every time.

          • Verna Lang

            The joke went right over your head, didn’t it, Brian? I never voiced an opinion about whether the study was observational or not as a critique. You brought that up. Observational studies already rank at or near the bottom of the hierachy of strength of evidence. The quality of Seralini’s work has already been shredded in the article and the comments here.

          • Brian Sandle

            Verna, you wrote 3 days ago: “to publish his “This study was not designed as a scientific experiment” work,”

            which I had to presume is a put down of observational research. And you were chiming in with the main article. So voicing an opinion or not you were reinforcing the bandwagon.

            I commented on it, I did not bring it up.

            Sometimes you only have observational studies. Something is wrong and you need to try to find out.

            Experimental studies are for a very different purpose. That is after someone has decided a disease is a trouble and is testing a treatment, or whether a GMO can be confirmed as a benefit or problem.

            I assert that excluding observational studies is being used as a way of delaying acknowledging the truth.

            Of course it is necessary to try to think about confounding factors, and do partial correlations or multiple regression analysis. They still do not prove anything, and nor does experimental research. But if a partial correlation is no different from the non-partial it is likely the partialled out factor is non-causal. If the partial tends to zero then it is likely that the partialled out variable is “causal.”

            I agree a simple correlation is not worth much, if that is what you mean by “observational.”

          • Verna Lang

            I quoted Seralini’s own words and you interpreted that as a putdown of observational research? No, that was a putdown of Seralini. Whether his research is observational or experimental, there were enough serious flaws in previous papers that reputable journals are no longer an option for him. That is why he is now in this embarrassing predicament of his article vanishing.

          • Brian Sandle

            Then you have to say why you chose to identify it by that sentence.

          • Verna Lang

            No, I do not have to say anything. You chose to try to read my mind and jump to a conclusion based on nothing more than your misinterpretation of what I wrote. As a mind reader, you are an epic failure.

          • Brian Sandle

            So you are now ackowledging that when you identified the study i this manner:”to publish his “This study was not designed as a scientific experiment” work,” that it was not in your mind that you were adding to that bandwagon of comment? And it is comment which could confuse the casual reader. And it casts poor light on the academic standard of this group.

          • agscienceliterate

            Exactly right, Verna. Bad “science,” flawed study where the researcher absolutely should have known better, and temporary publication in a shabby shoddy fly-by-night (literally) journal.

          • agscienceliterate

            Observations are just the start of scientific inquiry. They do not substitute for scientific inquiry. You may wish to portray an observation as “truth,” but scientists do not. An anecdote is not data. And even data needs to be carefully scrutinized for legitimacy.
            I myself unabashedly do put down “observational research” as being anywhere close to scientific inquiry. And I absolutely put down Seralini as a dishonest, disingenuous, data-manipulating fraud.

          • Brian Sandle

            What a laugh you are making this group.

            The two graphs of the Bt176 consumption and the deaths are close in shape.

            If you were an LSD supplier and bothered to note that numbers of your clients were getting paresis when they took it, would you then say there must be no connection until it is proven they do not have St Anthony’s Fire from eating mouldy grain even when you knew it had been tested and found clear?

            You would want experimental research done?

            “In a report on the
            Glöckner feeding trials dated 1 September 2015 [6], it appears that Syngenta
            withdrew its market permission in 2001 because of serious risks for animals,
            resulting in bans of the crop in several European countries. According to the
            German genetic engineering code, this should have resulted in market permission
            in Germany being scaled down, but the Federal Office for consumer protection
            and food safety failed to do so. Consequently, the strict liability of Syngenta
            for Bt176 was effectively switched off. And this was one of the main reasons
            why Syngenta in civil trials later could not be made responsible.”

            http://www.i-sis.org.uk/First_Commercial_Bt-Maize_was_Toxic.php

          • agscienceliterate

            I repeat: Observing a thing is only the start to genuine scientific inquiry. Observing a thing isn’t enough to draw a conclusion. If it was, we would still be concluding that the sun travels around the earth, because we “observe” that the sun “rises” in the east and “sets” in the west. You need to go back to a basic science class and learn about the fundamentals of scientific inquiry.

          • agscienceliterate

            Brian, I will make it very simple for you. Here is how the scientific method works: http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

          • agscienceliterate

            Yes, of course it means fly-by-night. “Woops, I forgot to re-register” never ever has happened to a reputable scientific journal.

  • Brian Sandle

    Nicholas Staropoli wrote: ” Furthermore, he notes that they found Glöckner was using,
    “inadequate and unsanitary corn silage with many undesired
    contaminations (plastics and dead rats) of the corn silage.””

    However from the paper:
    “Feed analyses included pathogens
    and mycotoxins, which were in all cases absent or below
    regulatory thresholds.”

    • Farmer with a Dell

      When your corn silage is garbage your herd suffers. Analyze for pathogens and mycotoxins all you please, poor quality feed ALWAYS results in poor performance. If you think differently you should be made to eat the stuff yourself.

      It can be pretty confusing when your herd is in the midst of a problem like that and it is all too tempting to lump all the mismanagement together and blame one simple imagined cause like Bt corn (in dairy herds here in the U.S. the traditional catch-all punt diagnosis has long been stray voltage).

      Sadly, when an inept manager maneuvers himself/herself in a fix like this far too many self-styled “experts” emerge from the woodwork to peddle their particular brand of woo. When that happens the end is not too far off for that dairy farm.

      I just think it is unfair to the cattle to suffer through all that incompetent flailing around — some people just shouldn’t be permitted to manage livestock…or even allowed to work around them. That’s how we get those dreadful gotcha videos the animal rights fanatics occasionally post on the internet to raise donations for their activist organizations.

      • gmoeater

        This is exactly what happens with incompetent and untrained backyard bee keeper hobbyists. When their bees die, they blame neonics instead of their own poor management. Professional beekeepers aren’t paranoid about neonics, but activist backyard beekeeper hobbyists get the press on that. Unfortunately, they sometimes influence public policy with unnecessary bans on neonics.

        • Farmer with a Dell

          Precisely

          • Brian Sandle

            What percent of GMO crop sales are dependent on bee-pollination?

          • Jackson

            The large majority of GMO crops in the US are corn and soy, neither of which are dependent on bees. I would imagine insect pollination of corn would be a real pain in the butt for seed farmers, if it happened in any non-negligible amount.

          • Brian Sandle

            So any company whose income is based on GMOs may indeed get more market share if bees go under?

          • Jackson

            I think they would get even more market share if they plant nuclear bombs in all non-GMO fields, and then genetically engineer billions of human clones who can only eat corn with that companies genes in them.

          • Brian Sandle

            losing, Jackson

          • Jackson

            Losing what?

            You theory is that some un-named unknown corporation is out there intentionally killing bees to increase the acreage of corn and soy planted in the US?

            I don’t think that your “hypothesis” deserves a serious response.

          • Brian Sandle

            Just not doing enough to protect the competitors.

          • Jackson

            Just not doing enough to protect the competitors.

            I have no idea what this is in reference to, or is supposed to mean.

          • gmoeater

            The guy is just doing word salad at this point. Out of desperation. Like Sara Palin the other night, endorsing Trump. Total babble.

          • Brian Sandle

            typical losing behavior.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            This guy seems like a special kind of crazy.

          • JP

            Why would they? Corn and soy aren’t bee-dependent whether they are GMO varieties or not.

          • Brian Sandle

            But there is little non-GMO stuff left. Most of the acres have the patent. It is my hypothesis that the fast spread was a result of the law which made farmers pay if the genes intruded on their land. They caved rather than pay legal bills, with spread to next farm ad infinitum. Now they are waking up.

          • JP

            Yeah, I seriously doubt that. Seed patents have been a thing since the 1930s. In addition, most farmers have been buying new seed every year for long before GMO varieties came along, and buying fresh new seed completely nullifies any accidental patent infringement issue.

          • Brian Sandle

            Easier to prove with a GMO. I think conventional breeding for traits is faster and cheaper, Then you drop in a GMO to trace it better.

            Some farmers like Percy Schmeiser were developing their own traits over decades, saving seeds.

          • JP

            OK, so let’s get your thoughts all collated here:

            1. GMO was created simply to be an easy to trace way of enforcing patents.

            2. Monsanto (et al, of course you forget there are many companies in the biotech business) wants to kill bees to increase their market share.

            3. Pro-biotech interests took Seralini’s study and interpreted it in ways it was apparently not meant to be in order to show that it doesn’t show what it doesn’t show.

            Boy, you’ve built yourself quite the rat’s nest of conspiracies there, bud.

          • gmoeater

            JP, you didn’t throw in his Percy Schmeiser last-draw desperation ploy. Brian, Percy was convicted of saving GE seeds, without having purchased them first. Theft.

          • Brian Sandle

            Jason thinks that is a myth.

          • hyperzombie

            GM Canola kind of blows a huge hole on your bee theory. You can increase the yeild of Canola by about 20% by having it pollinated by Honey bees. That is why the vast majority of Canadian honey is produced in Western Canada where the Canola grows.

          • Brian Sandle

            20% is something.

          • Jason

            There is no law that makes farmers pay for “genes intruding on their land”. That’s total nonsense.

          • Brian Sandle

            If you have Monsanto genes on your land in your crops you do not own your crops. It is easier to pay Monsanto and change to their GMOs rather than fight.

          • Jason

            No, Brian. That is a total internet myth.

          • Farmer Sue

            That is totally bullcrap. Read any technology use agreement.

          • Jason

            Somehow, you think that the demand for corn & soy will go up because bees are dead?

          • Jackson

            Once the honey bees are all dead, Monsanto will release the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouth, and when they bark they shoot bees at you.

          • Jason

            And THEN we’ll all need more corn. Now it makes sense!

          • Brian Sandle

            losing Jackson

          • Jackson

            I asked you before and you didn’t respond. What am I losing?

          • kfunk937

            Best I can tell, he thinks you’re losing “the battle to win hearts and minds.”The trouble with that is that their hearts already belonged to science denial, and they’ve lost their minds all on their lonesome, no help needed.

          • Brian Sandle

            When they start to flail about they are losing it. Jackson: “Once the honey bees are all dead, Monsanto will release the dogs, or the
            bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouth, and when they bark they
            shoot bees at you.”

          • kfunk937

            I thought that was funny, almost poetic, and illustrative of constantly shifting goalposts and amorphous fears.If you’re worried about bees, maybe you could check out this blog maintained by a biologist-beekeeper whose work, in part, involves paying attention to What’s Happening to the Bees?, and communicating that information to others in understandable language. I would direct your attention to the sections on genetically modified plants in particular, as that seems to be your primary interest. The rest is pretty good too, though, with extensive treatment of CCD.

    • Farmer Sue

      Brian, dear, did you ever think that if all of the cattlemen in this country and around the world noticed such a high percent of their cattle dying, this would have made ranching news mm and national news? One idiot’s mishandling of his cattle does not infer that his pathetic grasp at any reason that would shift the blame for whatever poor management he did (and I have no idea what he did or didn’t do) to GE feed is just ludicrous. I’m sure his successful ranching neighbors might have a thing or two to say about this guy. Use your rationality and common sense. We’d notice if cows were dying from GE feed, believe me.

      • Brian Sandle

        That line was withdrawn.

      • Brian Sandle

        “The farm itself received the German Food
        Society award in Frankfurt for 10 years’ worth of high
        yield and good quality milk production from 1991 to 2000.
        The technologically advanced farm was managed by
        an independent and qualified farmer, trained at the
        Agricultural School in Friedberg, Germany as a state certified
        agronomist (1982) and Master of agriculture
        (1986). Thus he was licensed to train apprentices (7 in
        total). The highest standards of hygiene and animal
        husbandry were followed in modern stall barns. The
        herringbone stalls for milking were for 2 x 4 animals
        simultaneously. In general, animals had free access to
        grassland.”

        • Farmer Sue

          I repeat my question, since you seem to want to address something else: Don’t you think many, many ranchers would have noticed their livestock dying? Answer it. And I also point out that anecdotes are not data. This is one guy’s barn. One guy’s barn. Not scientific correlation, much less causation.

          • Brian Sandle

            These observations were made in 1997 – 2002 before such a wide uptake of GMOs as today.

            If farmers complained to the agents, what sales practices would be in place?

            I note in India that accidental deaths dropped in a year of highest cotton exports, when farmers would have more money. Other surrounding years they increased a lot. Suicide is a known way out for broke farmers in India, therefore why was it not increasing in poor exports years? Maybe suicide gets listed as accidental death

            So maybe the cattle mortality was being listed as a result of something else.

            The farmer went through hell losing his marriage and going to prison I think over this affair.

          • Farmer Sue

            Answer. The. Question. I repeat it a third and last time here. If you do not answer it, then I presume you cannot, and would highly suggest you call your local farm bureau or cattleman’s association. Please do not leave us with the conclusion that you are uneducable.

            The question, for the third and last time: Do you not suppose that if livestock were dying from Glyphosaste, ranchers would not have noticed it? And that it would be worldwide news in the ranching and food industry?

            That is the question. Answer that question. Sliding over into Vandana Shiva’s lies about farmer suicides in India shows you are just hurling sugar beets wildly, with no aim, out of desperation.

            Answer that question, Brian.

          • gmoeater

            I’ve asked him that, too. His brain is fogged, if he thinks Seralini’s one observation and leap to a biased onclusion is more valid than the observations of thousands of farmers of millions of animals.

          • Brian Sandle

            Farmer Sue tickled me: “Don’t you think many, many ranchers would have noticed their livestock dying?”

            I answered: “These observations were made in 1997 – 2002 before such a wide uptake of GMOs as today.”

            This farmer grew his own GMOs. Maybe there was only 15% uptake and NaturGard/KnockOut was only one type. At a guess it may have been on 7% of farms. So there would not be very many cows affected.

            Also there tends to be suppression of proper reporting when an agent is trying to market a new crop. Please excuse me for hypothesising this farmer may have been under some sort of suppression from agents and that is why he was stressed, beat his wife and went to prison.

            In Southland New Zealand, some 200 cows died. They were eating herbicide tolerant swedes created by mutagenesis. I think it took more than a year before the dairy farmers’ organsation issued warnings about the high glucosinolates.

          • How does Apollo 11 fit into this scenario?

          • Brian Sandle

            I suppose you’ll go on repeating the same question until the answer no longer changes and then some

            Someone is getting cross with me for doing number tricks in reposnse to your goading, but I can’t help this since it impinges nicely on your name.

            Days between Kennedy’s announcement of plan to land mens on moon and the landing is 2978. That is a product of 2 and the prime number 1489.

            For the year 1489 “onthisday” gives 5 entries of which one is “Jul 22nd “Tractate Niddah” a talmudic edition, 1st printed”

            Now Captain Moonlight, moons is sometimes a term for months, which has a Latin translation of menses.

            I don’t dare start reading the translation, but the way I take the message is that this is something that passes. And I hope the desire for supremacy (implicit in being the first to get to the moon) is something that may pass and be replaced with a new cradle for development. We have seen the International Space Station as a symbol of going beyond competition.

            And I would like to see ecoagriculture – co-operation with nature rather than the sort of competition we have at the moment with so much extinction. We may like to strive a bit, but let us do it for goals for planetary conservation rather than corporate supremacy

          • OK, so what you are telling us is that you are a completely insane whack job. Please get yourself into therapy.

          • agscienceliterate

            Oh, good lord.

            Cap’n, be gentle … He may have just returned from a meal at Chipotle’s and thus may be suffering from TBS. I just made that up. Toxic Brain Syndrome. But it’s as good an explanation as any. I mean, it has the numbers 19, 2, and 20. (Numbers corresponding to the alphabet letters, for TBS). Or, was that my locker combination back in junior high?

          • Brian Sandle

            If you don’t want fun why do you goad me? Now you answer in return, as promised, about the reason for discontinuing NaturGard/KnockOut, in 2005, please.

          • agscienceliterate

            Brian, I believe what Farmer Sue meant, as I understand it, is why modern farmers haven’t noticed cows nowadays (that means post 2002) falling over, legs up, dead, deader than a doornail, from eating genetically engineered feed. I, too, am curious. Can you answer that question? If you believe that this one farmer example with the dead cows was a valid predictor of a universal phenomenon, then farmers would have seen that phenomenon of fields of dead cows, even more these days, with more GE feed on the market, dead by the thousands, AFTER the “wide uptake of GMOS” in their stock. Right?

            And as for cows in New Zealand, I’m sure if 200 cows did indeed eat herbicide tolerant Swedes created by mutagenesis (?), that makes perfect sense. Eating Swedes is bad for your health.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            I, too, insist Brian should share with us what he knows about the proven danger of feeding GMO feeds to dairy cattle. Our families have a lot at stake out here in our operation, so we have a right to know what only Brian knows about these risks of certain death because, strangely, we’ve incorporated just about every new technology into our management at one time or another and never experienced a die-off, not even a sneeze or a hiccup. In fact, herd health and productivity have never been better.

            What are we missing here on the farm Brian? Show us the proof of your extreme assertions.

          • hyperzombie

            I believe that you need to hire one of these professionals to find out about the “Real” issues.
            http://www.animalpsychic.co.uk/

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Great link! Now I am torn, who do I trust: Jackie is psychic but Brian is a numerologist. Which wields the greater potency? The comfort, health and productivity of our livestock is our first order of concern around here. If these gifted geniuses, Jackie and Brian can work their magic over the phone or by telepathy (and no doubt they can) our regular veterinarians (who are among the most skilled and experienced in their field) are about to have a big opening in their schedules! Isn’t this new age stuff great?!?!!

            Agroecology: Who Needs Science When You Have Storytelling…and Numerology…and Psychic Communication?

          • Brian Sandle

            I think the study was only about that particular farm and the withdrawn, for some reason, NaturGard/KnockOut.

            It is wrong to chide Seralini because you say you think his study was about something, when it isn’t

            The only question I have put on this thread about what farmers have noticed more recently is anything about fertility levels, and no-one has replied, pigs or cows.

            Sheep are even sensitive in fertility to estrogenic red clover (Genista of course.) They may get deformities of the external genitalia even. GMOs with their remainng Roundup and maybe even with their extra promoters tend to be more estrogenic than conventional. And steroid hormones tend to increase weight, which would add up to farmers thinking it is a better deal. But for humans the menarche could be earlier and I think that is happening which needs research. Experimental research if you can keep some kids on organic stuff.

          • agscienceliterate

            I chide Seralini for grasping at straws and using bad science, and I will not apologize for that.
            If the farmers here, or anywhere in the country, have noticed infertility, you would hear about it, believe me. You have joined Seralini by grasping at straws.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            We in livestock agriculture have not observed any unexplained episodes of infertility in recent memory. There have been rumors and urban myths ginned up in the activist community but no data to back any of it up. These activist types prefer to believe us farmers are exactly like their stereotype of us — that we are reckless, desperate, blind, inordinately wealthy when we should be impoverished, slaves to agribusiness, and generally too ignorant to do anything else but farm. They are wrong. You are right agxcilit, if there were a problem you all would be hearing about it. Complaining is something us farmers have become a little too famous for.

          • Brian Sandle

            “And as for cows in New Zealand, I’m sure if 200 cows did indeed eat
            herbicide tolerant Swedes created by mutagenesis (?), that makes perfect
            sense. Eating Swedes is bad for your health.”

            You are very confused there. Are you saying it makes perfect sense they died if they ate swedes?

            Of course one of the earlier claims was that the problem was that they were eating swedes, or in a certain season. But that has now been added to by admitting these mutagenesis-created swedes are higher in glucosinolates.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Swedes, all varietals, produce potentially toxic levels of glucosinolates during particular growth stages under particular growing conditions. Seems the HT swedes were developed from a base varietal that was more toxic than newer varietals developed expressly for grazing. Your reference to the NZ incident documents cattle losses to non-GMO swedes as well as HT swedes, only proving what experienced cattle men have always known about grazing. We recognize and usually manage the risks of grazing things like swedes, sudan grass, lush legume pastures safely and effectively. Every so often a neighborhood of grazers, who are always pushing the envelope anyway, have to re-prove the science of toxicology. A sad, terrible waste of animal life and that’s why some people really shouldn’t be permitted to manage animals…and why armchair agriculturalists should not speculate on what goes on out here in the real world.

          • agscienceliterate

            Two different questions, Brian, since you will not answer anything about recent observations of cows going belly-up from eating GE feed.
            1. Do you also oppose mutagenesis?
            2. Are you, by any chance, an anti-Vader?
            Let’s see if you will answer those two questions, since you continue to ignore the question about observation of cattle deaths since the rise of GE technology, and you keep harping on that one old case.

          • Brian Sandle

            1. I don’t know too much about it. I am worried about CRISPR.
            2. Don’t know much about Vader.

            This article seems to be about that one old case, and people are making a straw man to clobber, claiming it is something it isn’t.

            GE technology is a wide field. You would have to include rBST, with greater somatic cells in milk and probably more culling when antibiotics don’t work. NZ without rBST has lower somatic cells. It’s worrying that TPPA may stop us from getting that advantage in labelling. I guess we may even have to increase the allowable SCC.

            The issue of more deaths may also be clouded by more inside cows who may get less vitamin D, and more communicated infections. The question is what GMOs may be doing to immunity, which could show up as death from another cause.

            And google has quite a bit on glyphosate and ruminants, increased botulism (which may also be in a farmer’s gut.)

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Brian, you just keep doubling down on unfounded urban myths. Our cattle have never been more comfortable, healthier or more productive, not ever.

            Those of us employing the latest ag technology would prefer drastic reductions in allowable SCC. You will find SCC is an old-time problem still entrenched in old-time dairy facilities with old-time milking equipment. Modern large herds routinely attain high milk quality, we make it part of our mission.

            http://www.nmconline.org/articles/scc2009.htm

            Your amusing suggestion Vitamin D deficiency is a lethal problem and that it is prevalent is simply another symptom of your calculated lunacy. I was brought up to try to have compassion for the mentally impaired but you, Brian, are so stridently over the top that I can’t help laughing at your particular handicap and the way you use it to afflict the sane people around you. I think my momma would forgive me…she would scold me but she would forgive me…as she was trying like hell to keep a straight face in your presence herself.

          • Brian Sandle

            “Sliding over into Vandana Shiva’s lies about farmer” I mentioned nothing of her, I was describing strange statistics. Farmers are well know to suicide if they go broke. A very good year of cotton exports and the accident rate dropped. All the surrounding years with lesser cotton exports, the accident rate was increasing, but the suicide rate was constant. That seems to contradict a statistic which has been known before GMOs. (Though some people say more have died as GMOs have not lived up to promises of the agents.)

  • ColoradoBrit

    “In 2001, a few of his cows became lethargic, weak, and had reduced milk yield. That year, five of his 66 cows died. A similar scenario played out in 2002 and seven dead cows.”

    This is unfortunate, but hardly catastrophic. So why blame GMO feed when there could be any number of possible causes? I am not a veterinarian, but were the animals tested for Johne’s disease? Symptoms sound like that’s a possibiltiy. And as Farmer with a Dell has pointed out, there could be other reasons, including mycotoxins, and/or poor quality feed.

    If GMO’s were truly to blame, you would to see a lot more cases over a much wider area. But that hasn’t happened.

    • Brian Sandle

      Has Liberty Link been over a wide area?

      • ColoradoBrit

        Suggest you read the posts by Farmer with a Dell and Larkin Curtis Hannah.

        • Brian Sandle

          I asked about Liberty Link and they have not replied.

      • Guest

        Yes.

        • Brian Sandle

          This Bt176 Liberty Link maize was withdrawn in Europe in 2007. Not supposed to be in food or feed now.

          • Guest

            First, you asked about Liberty Link. You do realize, don’t you, that it is a separate trait from Bt176. Secondly, you asked “Has Liberty Link been over a wide area”. Since Liberty Link is used extensively in several crops in the US and Canada, then yes, that qualifies as a wide area.

          • Brian Sandle

            Sorry I misread the study. They had been small-scale trialing Liberty Link, but it was not used for feed.

            I think I should have said Bt176
            NaturGard KnockOut™, Maximizer™

  • J. Randall Stewart

    This article pointed out that “1 farmer who lost 12 cows” is being used as an example. There are hundreds of ways to have death loss. Unfortunately, we also have found a few of those. Blaming our losses on the wrong problem is a recipe for disaster, and a sign of poor management.

    There are 9 million dairy cows in the US being taken care of by 60,000 dairy farmers. Most of us know that very small differences in feed can make a large difference in production and herd health.

    I raise both GMO and non-GMO feed for my own cows. If there is any difference, it is that GMO feed is better. We are at an all-time record production (as are most herds in the US). This could not have happened unless we had the best feed available.

    • Wackes Seppi

      You are right.

      http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/201.dead-dairy-cows-maize-under-suspicion.html

      Three months after the last of the five cows died, Glöckner informed the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) in Berlin, which was the body involved in authorising EU-wide use of Bt176 maize developed by the agro-biotech company Syngenta. The RKI started an investigation and interviewed various experts in state-run and private research institutes.

      Poor feed, sick animals

      In April 2002, samples of Bt maize silage and Bt maize kernels from 2000 and 2001 were examined on the farm, and also other feeds used there, such as grass silage and a high-energy concentrate for dairy cattle. Glöckner had been feeding his cows on these shortly before the first problems with their health became apparent.

      In their report, the experts criticised inadequacies in the quality of the feed and deficiencies in the composition of their feed rations, which they considered might lead to substantial health problems in dairy cows. They identified the following points:

      Raised levels of certain fungal toxins (mycotoxins ) in the high-energy concentrate and in the maize silage,

      Poor feed quality of the grass silage used,

      Significant changes to the feed within too short a space of time and also insufficient quantities of the minerals required by cows in the periods before and immediately after calving,

      Obvious overfeeding (around 25 percent excess energy and up to 42 percent excess protein) with consequent overweight, which in dairy cows especially can lead to metabolic disturbances and calving problems.

      Two of the dead cows were examined for signs of the botulism pathogen, Clostridium botulinum, and in both cases it was found in the gut. This disease can spread amongst an entire herd and lead to death within weeks or months. Infection was also found in three of the five surviving cows.

      Analysis of the findings did not provide any evidence that Bt maize was the cause of death. According to the Robert Koch Institute, “based on the data and information available, it is therefore highly unlikely that there is a causal connection between the use of feed (silage, maize kernels) containing the Bt toxin from Bt176 maize and the deaths on Glöckner’s farm. Any long-term effect leading to deaths in cattle as much as several months after discontinuing use of these feeds is at least as unlikely”.

      • Farmer with a Dell

        RKI clearly describes what we in the dairy business now recognize as a classic “train wreck”. This was all too common among overwhelmed managers back in 2000 when this took place. Most of those farms went out of business and the rest of us learned a lot from their mistakes.

        RKI identified the 3 causal management screwups that compounded and snowballed to create the tragic confusing mess that resulted. Bt corn definitely had nothing to do with any of that — this German farmer had run his herd well off the rails before planting his first kernel of Bt corn.

        Cows are remarkably durable and resilient creatures. They will compensate for one management error after another until that last straw, then they decompensate and all hell breaks loose in a chaotic puzzling rash of seemingly unrelated dysfunctions. Terribly tragic for cows, intensely frustrating for manager & vet — even after making the correct fixes it is 6 months or longer for the herd to begin pulling itself back together. In the meantime you have to know where to look to find signals your course correction is actually taking place. Inept or impatient managers tend to keep changing management and treatment approaches, ironically only making the situation worse and prolonging it.

        It’s a heartwrenching set of lessons to learn but cows and their caretakers today are better off for it.

      • Brian Sandle

        Therefore why did they withdraw the product just 3 years later. Whole story please.

        • Farmer with a Dell

          Like any other varietal, it appears to have been superceded by new and improved varietals, phased out as market demand waned. That’s the case with most things out here in the real world, a mystery only to those who romanticise the past and who live, as much as possible, in a surreal dream world.

          One could as easily ask: Why did Ford discontinue the Model A? or Why did Westinghouse stop manufacturing tube radios?

          • Brian Sandle

            In that case there would have been no need for the stuff I relayed about being sure it were no longer in food.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            All we have seen you “relay” Brian is a bunch of disturbing mental symptomatology featuring rogue numerology and arcane riddles. If you have valid references, cite them, link them here so we may all benefit from your peculiar genius. Obviously you don’t have them so you flame this blog with psychotic foolishness. Get with the program Brian, or power down the wayback machine and call it a day. In smaller doses your antics are amusing but you have become tedious.

          • Brian Sandle

            It is tedious having to repeat stuff, but here for you is the reference I relayed. Read the annex:

            http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1454127823996&uri=CELEX:32007D0304

            And sorry that Bt176 NaturGard is similar but possibly weaker in Bt than the subject of the study we are considering: GM Bt176 (Pactol Cb GM variety). Please read my recent response to Stuart M.

            Sorry I disturbed you with the fun stuff. Of course no references, Or do you mean things like giving out again the URL for the “days between” calculator and the date of the Kennedy announcement of a moon landing? Search google for meanings.

            But I can’t help the little dig that children sometimes get very upset when you take away their toys. By toy I mean the supremacy game I talked of. I hope it can be replaced with something better now the world population is so large we cannot go on externalising the costs of our games on to the environment. I suppse you will stilll be upset and call that psychotic, but in doing so you demonstrate some sort of deficit yourself, I assert.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Your reference is merely an official acknowledgement Syngenta had discontinued supplying that seed line to the market. Newer and improved varietals were forthcoming. Syngenta is still very much in the seed business.

            You have managed to misunderstand this routine notification of transaction, just as you habitually misinterpret your other “evidence” of conspiracy and evil doing. You are a complete fool Brian. Unrivaled.

          • gmoeater

            He might be a shill for Big Aliens.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Possible. Certainly possible. The aliens may have abducted him somewhere and dropped him out here when they realized their mistake.

          • Brian Sandle

            You are trying to point the finger at other personas on this group being sockpuppets so of course no-one would think that about your persona.

            Do you expect children to be “gmoeaters,’ without testing if the extra estrogenic nature of them may be tragically reducing the age of menarche, which has been reducing?

          • Brian Sandle

            With most products you withdraw from the market you still support them. The regulators do not make up such rules as they have done in this case that the product is only to be allowed if found when unavoidable up to 0.9%.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Evidently you have no clue what goes into producing seed on a commercial scale. Remote acreage is required, a full complement of dedicated equipment and facilities, the focused attention of experienced caretakers. There is no wishy-washy “supporting” a discontinued seed line — it’s an all or nothing phenomenon — you either produce it or you do not. If you do not, there will be some previously produced seed remaining in stock for a season or two, some still floating around in dealers’ warehouses a bit longer and in machine sheds on a few farms for longer still. Some small scale planting of the discontinued varietal can continue for several seasons, turning up as a minor presence in pooled lots of grain. This is what the rules were anticipating from commercial growers in the corn market after Syngenta stopped production of that varietal.

            I can find nothing sinister in any of this. In fact, it seems quite routine. It certainly points out the costs associated with regulating these things so anal retentively — with every little market evolution you must invest considerable time and energy in customizing the regulations. That, alone, is a convincing argument for rejecting kneejerk reflexes to regulate every little technology a Luddite might misunderstand. But I suppose it does create make-work jobs in economies that desperately need them. It is all a colossal waste of time.

          • Brian Sandle

            Since commenters are not reading the whole thread I shall repost this:

            “In a report on the
            Glöckner feeding trials dated 1 September 2015 [6], it appears that Syngenta
            withdrew its market permission in 2001 because of serious risks for animals,
            resulting in bans of the crop in several European countries. According to the
            German genetic engineering code, this should have resulted in market permission
            in Germany being scaled down, but the Federal Office for consumer protection
            and food safety failed to do so. Consequently, the strict liability of Syngenta
            for Bt176 was effectively switched off. And this was one of the main reasons
            why Syngenta in civil trials later could not be made responsible.”

            http://www.i-sis.org.uk/First_Commercial_Bt-Maize_was_Toxic.php

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Brian please copy/paste the precise phraseology from the Commission Decision that indicates, without a doubt, this market withdrawal was due to “serious risk for animals” because I’m not seeing it. Here’s the link just to help you along.

            http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1454127823996&uri=CELEX:32007D0304

            Brian you are hallucinating. Syngenta discontinued an obsolete line to make room for the next greatest thing, hence it notified the bureaucrats it would not be renewing the permit for that discontinued line. Thus the attention to phasing out the permitting. All so very routine it makes me yawn.

            Why do you waste our time with this sort of twaddle Brian? Do you really think you are fooling anyone into believing your silly conspiracy theories? You seem like an otherwise intelligent person, you could do some good if you didn’t have your head up your ass all the time. What is wrong with you, boy?

          • Brian Sandle

            You have not answered why they would be bothered to get it down to 0.9% in food or feed. If it were only a matter of room for a new strrain on the field there is no reason for that 0.9%

            But I do have to apologise. Though my comment still stands, it was another Bt176 that was withdrawn as a health trouble for animals, that was GM Pactol.

            I am searching for the Cologne legal data as referred to in i-sis

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Simply a manner of speaking.

            To say “no more than 0.9%” is to say “less than 1%”.

            Choosing 1% is fairly arbitrary, a nice round number that effectively removes the product with lapsed permit from the market but still makes practical allowance for small remaining obsolete inventories to be worked off. Could there be a more innocuous procedure?

            After all this failed witch hunting I think it is safe to say data mining the EU regulatory machinations will return only uneventful results. There simply is no there there.

            Give it up Brian. Move on to something interesting.

          • Brian Sandle

            If they are making space on the fields for the new GMOs there is no need to limit the old ones still in food to less than 1%. That does nothing to space on the fields.

            Though I say again Bt176 was in several products and rather than the Naturgard/Knockout it appear to have been the GM Pactol which was withdrawn quickly by Syngenta in 2001 as it was hurting animals.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            If the EU continued to permit the product after the lapse what was the use of issuing permits in the first place? Why waste time with a permitting process at all, or a ban for that matter if you aren’t going to enforce it? Brian you must have shit for brains. C’mon get serious here.

          • Brian Sandle

            Now you are agreeing that it is a ban.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            It’s a permitting process. Don’t be an ass.

            Good day Brian, enough obtuse nonsense from you for one day my friend.

    • Warren Lauzon

      A study a few years ago by (I think) FDA showed that a major cause of cattle death was bad feed, usually from mold (ie Aflatoxin).

  • Jim Gordon

    Anthony Samsel is another fraud who is supposedly retired but is still active on Disqus and has a facebook disinformation page. He praises Seralini as a genius.

    • hyperzombie

      He is a genius, he makes a ton of money from organic groups to do crap science. Freaking brilliant if you are a second rate scientist and your main concern is making money.

  • Peter Olins

    The full paper can still be found here (at least for now):
    http://www.criigen.org/download/communiqueDocument/30/SeraliniGlockner-SJAS-2016.pdf

  • I see the argument made constantly that Seralini won a defamation lawsuit. But how does his winning a defamation case vindicate him in any way? His research is shoddy, experimental design is laughable, and his conclusions are unfounded and irreproducible.

    I’d expect that if a study is done that shows that GMO crops in wide use are linked to any type of detrimental health of humans or livestock, we will read about it in Science and Nature, not the Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Sciences.

    • Brian Sandle

      Which is not what the research was about.

  • First Officer

    I guess it biodegraded, like any other manure.

  • Benjamin Edge

    Why would a reputable journal use the term “Scholarly” in its title, unless its publishers are afraid that it won’t be taken seriously? This is much like the adage that any Web site with “truth” in the title can be assumed to not be very truthful.

    • Brian Sandle

      One interpretation that the other “Journal of Agricultural Sciences” with no “Scholarly” in front is more a business-led than scholarly journal.

  • Daniel Borgen, M.D.

    When a number of cows within a herd just fade away and die, the most likely cause is Johne’s disease (chronic GI infection with Avian paratuberculosis)

    • Farmer with a Dell

      Johne’s is one differential diagnosis, certainly. It’s all too prevalent in too many regions but it tends to be over-diagnosed as precipitating a “train wreck’.Underlying might be a better assessment of the role of Johne’s. Always best to flesh out the list of differentials and seek out management shortfalls to be corrected. Those usually address Johne’s Rx as well.

  • SageThinker

    This passage of this article is ingenuine:

    ““This study was not designed as a scientific experiment.” The phrase is also repeated in the paper’s abstract. Yet despite this self-characterization as not science, it has been promoted as a scientific evidence against the safety of GMOs.”

    Clearly, what was meant is that it’s an observational study, after the fact, based on collected data. Isn’t that clear as day? How can you then write of “this self-characterization as not science” — are you so simplistic as to think that only “experiments” are “science”?

    • SageThinker

      Also a little typo “into the the affects of GMOs” –> “effects”

    • Brian Sandle

      You are looking a bit sillly not reading the thread before repeating stuff. Science as with earthquake studies can be observational, but as with earthquakes not “experimental” when you cannot set up a control group and an experimental group.

      In saying this was not experimental he was only making clear that this was analysis of historical data kept when cows were dying when they were being fed on the new Bt 176 maize.

      No experimental procedure can be done with this maize since it was withdrawn. But the science is in the analysis of the records.

      With the high level of Bt toxin acknowledged in the silo one can imagine the sort of paresis coming from the psychotropic drug LSD in microgram quantities. Though that is just guesswork, but it acknowledges small quantities can have potent effects.

      “It contained 8.3
      ng/g modified CryIAb Bt toxin in the silo 1.5 years after
      harvest, corresponding for the last 2 years to a minimal
      exposure of approximately 0.15 mg/cow ration/day. In the
      case of another somewhat similar Bt maize variety,
      MON810, approximately 1 μg/g of the modified Bt toxin
      was found in grains and around 10 μg/g in leaves
      (Szekacs et al., 2009). This was compatible with what
      could be in the silo after 1.5 years.”

      Other points to note:
      1 “Syngenta recognized the quality
      of the farmer’s silage, but asked him not to dispose it on
      grassland”

      2 “when this GM Bt maize was first
      developed, Novartis (subsequently Syngenta) performed
      an initial trial for the authorities in the USA. Only 4 cows
      were fed with the maize over a 2-week period (1996
      report from Iowa State University for Novartis, rendered
      public by Court, see Annex). One cow died in the middle
      of the experiment with electrolyte and mucosal problems,
      and surprisingly, was removed from the protocol. This
      information was not public at the time,”

      • SageThinker

        Brian, it appears that you and i are agreeing, even though you start your comment by saying i’m looking a bit silly. Could you please clarify what you mean? Or maybe you misread my comment.

        • Brian Sandle

          I only meant you hadn’t noticed prior comments on observational research vs experimental research and the citation I gave before writing your comment.

          • SageThinker

            Oh, ok. It’s true, i had not read all the prior comments before i commented. Thanks for the reply.

  • David Zaruk

    Anyone with an academic email address knows the type of spam they get from the Nigerian journals – within a few seconds, most people will look for the delete button. Apparently not Gilles-Eric! I can’t believe he not knowingly fell for their catch (maybe he is also waiting for the conference information after paying his fees!). And if he did not know, please, try not to laugh, wouldn’t someone as lawyered up and with PR experts coming out of every crevice of his backside, have, at some point, been advised against it?
    I suppose contempt for the peer review process can easily be translated into contempt for the scientific establishment. And that’s where we are today!

  • Bixbyte

    Now that something has happened in Brazil it is time to take a closer look at GMO. I see the US Government has banned GM Salmon until “proper labels” can be printed.

  • Wackes Seppi

    The predatory journal site is online again.

    • Verna Lang

      Yes, the journal is back up. Seralini also published the personal trials of the farmer and the conspiracy theory that ruined his life as well as the main article.
      http://www.scholarly-journals.com/sjas/archive/2016/January/pdf/S%C3%A9ralini.pdf
      You can almost hear the violins in the background as the sad tale of the farmer is told. His wife and children left him in 2000, she started divorce proceedings in 2005, and he was sentenced to a year in jail in 2006 for beating his wife. This, of course, was all because he fed his cows Bt176 maize and evil Syngenta was conspiring against him when he sued them.
      This, in a “scholarly” journal.

  • Boris Ogon

    I haven’t gone through all 423 comments, so please excuse me if this has already been noted: The site’s “registrant” has something of a dubious history.

    • agscienceliterate

      Boris, we are all dubious on this site. Science nerds always doubt, then confirm.