10 times science challenged ‘studies’ suggesting GMOs are harmful

Activists often cite the alleged health risks of genetically modified foods. A classic example of this—”10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health“, posted on Collective-Evolution.com—outlines many familiar concerns and points in each case to “credible scientific studies that clearly demonstrate why GMOs should not be consumed”.

Are these concerns credible? What do the studies cited actually claim?

1) Multiple toxins from GMOs detected in maternal and fetal blood

The blog post sites a 2010 study that alleges to show this danger. The authors identified the Bt protein Cry1Ab in maternal and fetal blood, a protein found in some GMOs, but also commonly used as a pesticide in organic farming. The paper is flawed. The researchers’ measurements were based on an experiment/assay designed to detect Bt’s Cry1Ab in plants, not in humans. As this post in Biofortified.org explains, the pregnant women in the study would have had to eat several kilos of corn in order to get the Bt measurements that were detected in their blood.

Additionally, there’s the “so what” factor. Humans lack the receptors for the protein, so it has no impact on us. Did you know that chocolate is toxic to dogs? Are you concerned that it might be toxic to you? Probably not (if you are concerned, then you’ve missed out on the greatest source of joy known to human taste buds…). Some chemical compounds behave differently among species, and both Bt‘s Cry1Ab and chocolate are examples of this.

2) DNA from genetically modified crops can be transferred into humans who eat them

That’s not what the cited 2013 study concluded. The authors found that whole genes from our food can be detected in our plasma. That does not mean that they’ve integrated into our DNA; it means that they’ve been found floating in the space between cells. And that’s any food, not just GMOs. DNA from GMOs behave no differently than DNA from organic or conventional foods

If you aren’t concerned about the DNA from blueberries “transferring” into you, then you should not be concerned about DNA from GMOs either. The paper’s deepest flaw is that a negative control was not included in the sequencing experiments. Several recent papers (see here and here) have outlined the importance of including a negative control in experiments where there is very little DNA to account for possible contaminants from the environment and reagents. (For a lay introduction to the concept of contaminants in sequencing, see here).

Image credit: Illinois Farm Bureau

3) New study links GMOs to gluten disorders that affect 18 million Americans

The article quotes for an alleged “study” by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). But there is no study on the link of GMOs to gluten allergies. There’s a link to a post on a webpage, but there isn’t a peer-reviewed article. IRT is a one-man band run by activist Jeffrey Smith. It is an NGO that advocates for the elimination of GMOs from our food supply. It’s not a university, college or research institution. It doesn’t do studies.

I’ve written about gluten allergies and GMOs. The Celiac Disease foundation has spoken out against the IRT’s report. GMO wheat has not been commercialized, so any association of gluten allergies with the consumption of GMO wheat is on its face absurd. As for charts that track an increase in GMO consumption in general and gluten allergies, it’s a case of association with no causation (i.e. the incidence of gluten allergies have increased over the past decade and the amount of GMOs we eat have increased too. But, so have the number of plasma screens manufactured).

4) Study links genetically modified corn to rat tumors

This claim is the infamous Seralini paper, which was retracted, and recently republished, in a different journal without being peer reviewed. The paper identified tumors in rats that were fed GMOs and/or the herbicide glyphosate longterm. But the strain of rat used was predisposed to tumors. The paper did not perform statistical analyses and used too few rats, so it was not possible to determine if the tumors were due to the food, the chemical or to the fact that the strain of rats would get tumors regardless of what they were fed. Finally, the findings from Seralini’s paper are contrary to other long-term feeding studies. An overview of the criticisms regarding this paper can be found here.

5) Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors

This claim relates to glyphosate, an herbicide used in tandem with herbicide-resistant genetically modified crops. The cited paper examines the impact of glyphosate on breast cancer cell growth. In approximately 80 percent of instances of breast cancer, the diseased cells are hormone sensitive, meaning they need estrogen in order to proliferate and spread. These researchers took two breast cancer cell lines: one was estrogen sensitive and one was not, and they examined the impact of increasing amounts of glyphosate on cell growth. They found that glyphosate has similar impact on breast cancer growth as estrogen, although the relationship was not as strong, and it did not have an impact on the proliferation of the non-hormone sensitive breast cancer cell line.

The paper had numerous technical problems, including the absence of data on controls, a potentially critical omission. Additionally, there actually seems to be a protective effect at higher concentrations of glyphosate: instead of reaching a saturation point where the addition of glyphosate no longer has an effect on cell growth, there is no significant difference in cellular growth between the cells that received the highest doses of glyphosate and the controls  (which is why the data from the controls is an important factor).

This experiment was done with cells in a petri dish—what’s called an in vitro tissue-culture experiment. Such research is of limited real-world value. The cells are often finicky and need plenty of TLC in order to grow well; different cell lines can also behave very differently. The authors of the paper note some of these issues, along with the fact that their data doesn’t mesh with previous studies that have examined the impact of glyphosate on cellular proliferation (this previous paper suggests that glyphosate actually protects against cell proliferation in vitro in eight different cancer cell lines and that glyphosate might be developed into an anti-cancer drug!).

Monsanto wrote a response to the paper noting that many studies examined the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate and none has found that the compound causes cancer. Some news reports misinterpreted the study, writing that researchers concluded that glyphosate causes cancer when that is not the researchers’ findings: they suggest glyphosate may cause breast cancer to proliferate. Monsanto pointed out that even this finding is contrary to the body of evidence that exists on the topic. The authors admit to this fact and discuss the appropriate next steps to examine this issue in mice/rats models for breast cancer. I think that that’s a great next step. I’d also look at a few more breast-cancer cell lines.

This is the most compelling research paper that I’ve read about that suggests a potential health risk surrounding glyphosate. But the study must be reproduced and its issues ironed out. However, as I mentioned, the paper isn’t really about GMOs as a class: keep in mind that only a fraction of GMOs are glyphosate resistant (i.e. Round-up Ready crops) and the use of glyphosate is not limited to GMOs.

Related article:  Is there gap in federal regulation of newer GMOs?

Additionally, the paper does several experiments with a compound in soybean whose impact on breast cancer cell growth is very similar to that of glyphosate’s—meaning that there are “natural” compounds in our food that seem to have the same impact on breast-cancer proliferation that this paper’s findings suggest for glyphosate. There does not seem to be a scientific consensus on the topic of soy intake in breast cancer patients, although several publications have examined this issue without finding a positive correlation (examples here, here, and here).


6) Glyphosate linked to birth defects

No peer-reviewed, published scientific study makes such claims. The source of this health concern is a publication by Earth Open Source, an anti-GMO NGO co-founded by an individual who also owns a GMO-testing and certification company, and whose business would clearly benefit through the promotion of anti-GMO sentiments (see “About the Authors” in this document).

7) Study links glyphosate to autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

The paper that led to this health claim does not constitute research. It’s a hypothesis and no research was done to support the hypothesis. The paper was reviewed by science journalist Keith Kloor at Discover Magazine who aptly compared it to a Glenn Beck chalkboard drawing.

The claims were printed in a pay-for-play journal (also known as predatory journal), meaning that for a fee, one can get nearly anything published. There have been several exposés on pay-for-play journals, and many scientists believe that the phenomenon is eroding the quality of science (here’s an overview from Nature.com; here’s an exposé of pay for play journals)

8) Chronically ill humans have higher glyphosate levels than healthy humans

This claim is based on a paper published in the Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, owned by the Omics publishing group- a notorious predatory publishing company.

The authors examined glyphosate levels in humans and different animals. There’s no indication of what the animals were fed, how much, how they were kept or myriad other variables. Any of these could invalidate the study. The researchers do not say anything about the age, sex, weight, height, or genetic background of the humans, or how much they ate, if they washed their food, how long they had been eating organic/conventional diets and, most mind-blowing of all, there’s absolutely no definition for what constitutes being “chronically ill”. Any single issue that I’ve listed here would be considered a fatal flaw that would exclude the paper from publication in a more prestigious journal.

Want to follow the latest news and policy debates over agricultural biotechnology and biomedicine? Subscribe to our free newsletter.

9) Studies link GMO animal feed to severe stomach inflammation and enlarged uteri in pigs

In the study on which this claim is based, the researchers gave pigs GMO feed and non-GMO feed and identified the differences between the two groups. The paper has been thoroughly challenged by many journalists and scientists:

  • Journalist Mark Lynas highlighted the degree to which the data is cherry-picked. The difference in “inflammation” between the GM-fed and non-GM-fed pigs is apparent only when you break down the degree of inflammation into subcategories, but there’s no difference if you view it as a single category. Overall, there’s a high rate of inflammation for both groups, which is not explained in the paper. At the same time, there are several parameters where GM-feed could be argued as having a protective effect (there are 50 percent fewer heart-abnormalities in pigs fed GM-grain), but this isn’t discussed.
  • As explained by geneticist Anastasia Bodnar, the authors do not analyze the compositional differences in the feed between the two groups. Previous studies have determined that the environment (i.e., water, soil, geography) of a crop has a greater impact on proteins and metabolites than whether or not the crop is a GMO. As such, the differences seen in the pigs may not be due pesticides or presence/absence of the transgenic protein; rather, they are most likely due to differences in composition of the feed
  • Geneticist Val Giddings notes that the animals had abnormally high rates of pneumonia, which points to the possibility that something wonky was going on.

In conclusion, even if the paper’s findings are real, there’s no knowing whether that’s due to something associated with transgenes or not, because the researchers do not account for natural variation in the feed.

10) GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.

Let’s set aside the fact that this isn’t a “Scientific Study Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health,” which is the claim set out in the title. There are three papers associated with this bullet point. The first one is a review and I agree with a few of the points it makes. It highlights the need for standardized tests and statistics in animal feeding studies for GMOs, and anyone who followed the Seralini debacle would probably agree. It summarizes papers that have performed feeding studies and their results. However, the review does not remove flawed papers from their overview and nor does it distinguish between feeding studies for GMO crops that have been commercialized vs. crops that have never been submitted for regulatory approval. The paper does not conclude, “GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence”.

The second paper is also a review piece. The first author is affiliated with “Friends of the Earth,” an anti-GMO NGO. It does not constitute novel research and has a clear editorial slant.

The third paper does not even qualify as a review. It’s a commentary published in 2002 in Nature Biotechnology, which is a high caliber journal. It outlined possible unintended consequences that could happen with a GMO—none of which have ever been documented or identified since then, to the best of my knowledge.

In conclusion, despite the title of the article, none of these studies proves or even persuasively suggests that GMOs can be harmful to human health. The majority are either obviously flawed or are not scientific studies.

The current scientific consensus regarding GMOs remains unchanged: they are safe and do not pose a health risk to humans. However, a scientific consensus is subject to change if there is sufficient reproducible evidence that may impact it, but none of the studies reviewed here constitute such evidence.

A version of this article first appeared on the GLP on November 13, 2015.

Layla Katiraee holds a PhD in molecular genetics from the University of Toronto and is a senior scientist in product development at a biotech company in California. All opinions and views expressed are her own. Follow her on Twitter @BioChicaGMO

2,240 thoughts on “10 times science challenged ‘studies’ suggesting GMOs are harmful”

      • So don’t trust the scientist who is specifically trained and qualified to talk about the very thing she’s talking about, but DO trust the conspiracy theory, jack booted thugs who want to take away my freedom to choose what I eat?

        You have not just jumped the shark my friend, you have nuked the fridge.

        • Well, if some random guy on the internet says it, it must be true. Your ad hominem attacks mean nothing; they are just empty words. She may be trained, but that doesn’t mean she has much real-world experience or is doing anything more. Many of the scientists on the other side of the argument, most of them independent but working for universities, have much more experience than she. One has only to dig into the actual research, not just some Top Ten list, to realize the discussion is far from settled and over. But please, keep eating whatever you want. Eat shit for all I care, but don’t pretend that you actually know what you’re talking about.

          • Wow.

            Seriously, wow. You just said that a scientist who works in and is an acknowledged expert bio-sciences has no real world expertise in her own chosen field because she has an opinion contrary to your own.

            I’ve seen some prejudicial BS in my day, but holy cow dude. This is just like the anti-vaxxer’s arguments where they claim to have “the real truth” and no amount of real science will ever convince them that they are not only wrong but grossly and incompetently wrong.

            I’d tip my hat to the arrogance but I don’t feel it should be rewarded.

          • Not my opinion; other, well-respected scientists’ opinion. Using simplistic statements like “anti-vaxxers” doesn’t make your case any more convincing, not to mention it’s just another straw man. By the way, plenty of people have discerning opinions on the state of vaccines, as well as GMOs. You would probably realize this if you’d do some more research beyond simple websites that you agree with ideologically. Just throwing around words like “science” doesn’t mean you actually comprehend what it means. And, please, step away from the Reddit and go outside and get some sun and exercise. Maybe then you’ll be able to make some actual reasonable, cogent arguments.

          • Here is where I point out that all you’re doing is attacking me and anyone who points out that you aren’t actually arguing anything other than this scientist, who works in and is an acknowledged expert in her field, isn’t qualified to make a statement in her own field of study.

            You then go on to say that a University teacher has more experience and authority than someone who is actually working in the field for reasons that remain unclear as you don’t actually give voice to something so sanctimoniously unsound because it would be utterly laughable on the face of it.

            Now, as I have never been to Reddit your rather pedestrian attempt at negating my previous points is rather amusing and only goes to show that you are, in fact, nothing more than a presumptuous and pandering little troll who only wants to shut down any discussion outside of what you approve of. You don’t want people to be actually informed, you want them fed your propaganda because an informed populace is a dangerous one.

            I want the Truth and if this woman is telling it, then you have no right to silence it because you don’t agree with it.


          • The woman. Named in the above article. Who is a trained biologist and an expert in her field. Do please read the article above because it’s been quite a while since this was even published. I’ve said my peace and have no wish to go further since it’s fairly obvious no one was actually interested in listening to anything the opposition has to say.

            Have fun sticking your head in the sand. I hear that fear tastes like chicken.

          • Having your Capslock on is shouting. It doesn’t make your posts easier to read either. Please take your Capslock off.

          • And that is exactly the problem. You folks have opted to abandon rational thought in favor of ideology and lies. You have no clue.

          • No, her article shows a serious lack of discernment and isn’t particularly well-reasoned. If it were, it would include other attributes of human behavior that can affect research, including dogmatic, ideology based thinking, greed and numerous other ego-based behaviors that inhibit the scientific process. You are the one without a clue, I would say.

        • “Jack booted thugs who want to take away my freedom to choose what I eat?”
          Funny. If you want to eat glyphosate, go ahead. For my part, I don’t want “jack booted thugs” forcing me to eat it without my knowledge.

          • Thank you! I had been wondering why no one had said this! As far as I am concerned, people can eat whatever they want! And they can NOT eat whatever they don’t want. So, why can’t we get these GMOs, at the very least, labelled? I know the answer, but it’s a pitiful one. I am wondering if anyone actually has a GOOD answer to this.

          • And I’ll believe that when they stop spreading lies and misinformation about the subject. No matter how much you might want things to be otherwise, you are not entitled to your own facts (as in making up your own facts). Until you’re ready to debate and/or discuss the matter honestly kindly let the experts and the adults do the talking.

          • And pro-GMO entities do NOT spread lies and misinformation? Isn’t that all the industry does??? Talking point 1, talking point 2, etc… Oh, and if they hint to this, side-step and hit them with this!
            Please, explain to me why you think GE food technology is NOT being used irresponsibly? We have NO answers, and yet they are already more than 70% of our food supply! Where are the long-term studies? And why do pro-GMO groups care so little about the unintended effects? How about the effects on the environment? What they are doing to topsoil alone is unacceptable! Water, air, earth. And now… nematodes? Some GMO mono-crops (mono-cropping is bad, in itself) are killing off necessary free-living soil nematodes. Where will it stop?
            Are you even aware that the large majority of all industry GMO crops are not even for human consumption? The “test” crops go to feed the animals we will eventually eat ourselves (even though most of these animals natural diet is NOT grains), or they go to make fuel!
            The industry controls over half of the world’s seed stock. How is this EVER a good idea?
            Excuse me for the rant, but I thought I would find brighter minds here. I am seriously let down.

          • Karen, what you wrote is a rant. Please provide a link to what you consider is a “GMO lie”. You make a lot of generalizations in your rant, but not one is supported by a link to any independent science source. In fact, many of your claims are the exact opposite of the facts. GM crops are more sustainably than organic agriculture if you do a life cycle analysis. For example, with Bt crops, you use almost no insecticides, while organic farmers massively use insecticides, spraying 5 or more times a season. Herbicide tolerant crops use far less toxic pesticides than do organic farmers, as just one example. Also GM farming allows no till agriculture, which enriches the soil and turns the soil into a carbon sink, improving climate change conditions, while organics and non-GMO conventional farming is sustainability disaster. As for “controlling” the world seed stock, what you write is just not true. Farmers get to choose whatever seeds they want. If the seeds do not perform as well, they do not choose them; there is no control. Patenting has been part of agriculture since the 1920s. Most organic seeds are patented. Patenting is limited to 20 years, so all seeds that are patented soon go off patent. This is a system designed to incentive innovation, not “control”. It would be great if you educated yourself a bit about modern agriculture.

          • Hi Karen,

            You’ve raise a lot of issues here. I’ll try to address them.
            1) “Why do pro-GMO groups care so little about the unintended effects?” Who said we don’t care? I just haven’t read any legitimate study pointing to an unintended health impact. Additionally, singling out GMOs for unintended consequences seems strange when they’re much more thoroughly tested/studied when compared to technologies such as mutagenesis.
            2) “What they are doing to topsoil alone is unacceptable”. Could you please provide me with a peer reviewed study that I could look over? Round-Up Ready crops have allowed for no-till farming, which reduces soil erosion.
            3) “Monocrops”. This is an issue with agriculture, not GMOs, unless you believe that berries and spinach in the supermarket are bought from a backyard garden. It’s an issue that needs to be addressed, but you’re limiting the extent of the problem by narrowing it down to only GMOs. Please see here: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/07/lets-play-gmo-jeopardy/
            4) “Are you even aware that the large majority of all industry GMO crops are not even for human consumption”. Again, you’re confounding the issue: that’s due to the type of crop being grown, not because it’s a GMO. Of course a huge percentage of the alfalfa grown in the US (GMO or otherwise) is for animal consumption. That’s because it’s alfalfa; not because it’s a GMO.
            5) “The industry controls over half of the world’s seed stock”. Again, not a GMO issue. Many, many non-GMO seeds, including those for decorative plants, are patented and sold. I haven’t seen anyone giving out cucumber seeds for free, and that’s simply because some company out there, who is probably owned by a much bigger company, took the time to create a strain of cucumber that’s suited to the climate where I live and the soil in our garden. That work took time and effort, and that company deserves the money I pay them for the packet of seeds that we plant in our backyard. Same goes for the GMO seeds used by farmers. See here: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/22/patents-and-gmos-should-biotech-companies-turn-innovations-over-to-public-cost-free/

          • Ian, have you read that paper carefully?

            While the authors can conclude that there is a statistical difference in the degree of severe stomach inflammation in pigs fed GM corn, the conclusions end there. The results may very well be a statistical anomaly. Look at the number of pigs with moderate inflammation. The number of pigs in the non-GM fed group with moderate inflammation is just outside the range of significance (p=0.58, threshold p=0.05). For mild inflammation, the numbers are roughly equal. Does that make any sense to you?

            Furthermore, this is not quantitative data. Inflammation was scored visually. There should have been followup analysis, like a complete blood count analysis. This would have provided much more convincing evidence.

            But I think the most problematic thing of all is that the majority of pigs in the study were suffering from pneumonia. Frankly, I just don’t see how anyone can point to this paper as credible evidence that GM feed is harmful.

          • For me it’s not about the science, it’s about the overall goal of GMO’s. And that for me is Market share and controlling food sources. I am not a scientist, nor am I qualified to say or verify either way the scientific claims of the potential, or lack of, harmful nature of GMO’s. But I have extensively read and researched the way that markets work and am more then aware of the way that deception, gaming the system and regulatory capture play a large role within the markets and Government and my level of trust for entities such as Monsanto to act in the interests of protecting and being forthright with the general populace are about the same level I would give to letting a known, convicted pedophile look after a week long camping trip comprised of school children. Enough valid questions have been raised that erring on the side of caution in my mind is prudent.

          • Ian, I think that’s debatable. Yes, there are lots of commercial applications for GMOs and given the cost of producing GMOs, most commercial GMOs will be produced by for-profit companies. Few public institutions can afford to do so. But there are examples of ways genetic engineering can be applied in a non-commercial setting. Golden Rice is one example of how this can be done.

            I agree that the legislation surrounding GMOs (e.g. patent laws, ownership of genetic resources, saving of seeds, etc) needs improvement. The laws are patchwork, drawn from various pre-existing precedents and have been written by industry lobbyists in some cases. These are issues we should address. I would like to seem them openly discussed and addressed.

            One problem I frequently see is a conflation between perceived health risks and legislation (note, I’m not saying you have necessarily done this, just speaking generally). When these issues are conflated, it becomes easy for lobbyists and GM advocates to sideline legitimate criticisms about regulation by pointing at the unsubstantiated claims about health risks. Critics would be taken a lot more seriously I think if they admitted that there are such things as safe GMOs, and instead focused their arguments on better regulations and laws surrounding GMOs.

        • WHAT SCIENTIST? I’ve read over 1800 papers. The scientists that develop these products say clearly that they should be tested further. At least half of these recommend long term testing. Over a quarter of them say that the outcomes over the next 20 years are completely unknown. If you are quoting a scientist. NAME HIM! GIVE THE NAME OF THE PAPER. I can address it if you tell us the name and what is in it! Why won’t you tell us what’s in the papers or who wrote them?

      • Pretty typical of anti-GMO ideologues. Take a well reasoned argument from someone with a Ph.D. in the relevant field and smear them. The alternative health movement and the anti-GMO smear machine has turned much of the environmental movement into a pathetic joke.

        • Saying something like “Anti-Gmo Ideologies” is essentially a straw man and an ad-hominem; it means nothing. First, and foremost, GMOs are not all the same; it’s a broad term. You can’t compare cross-breeding to inserting DNA from a mammal into a plant. Your disagreement lacks any reference to facts. Her argument is not particularly well-reasoned and her references are cherry-picked. Your lack of critical thinking shows in your post.

        • By the way, just getting a PhD doesn’t mean anything other than you can regurgitate what you’ve been told and can put it in a cogent form. Impressive, but it doesn’t show critical thinking skills or the fact you are free from ideological thinking.

          • I got mine by hanging in till the bitter end. It has little to do with what you know as much as who on your board likes you and who doesn’t. Really. honestly. if you go through the process you’ll see a lot of people get doctorates by just paying for them.

          • Calamity, maybe it works that way in the “humanities” fields, such as social science, art history, musicology, and the like. It doesn’t work that way in the real, hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, and their related fields. Only through critical thinking, and learning how to apply it to authentic issues do Ph.D. candidates become awarded their degrees. It’s necessary to publish your research in a peer-reviewed journal, where your articles are subjected to scrutiny by others in the relevant field. Evidently you never experienced that sort of scrutiny, as your cynical post demonstrates.

          • As an English doctoral student, I can promise you, doctoral programs in the humanities are just as rigorous as those in the sciences. Calamity up there clearly has not actually pursued a doctoral degree in the humanities. Please do not minimize the work and intelligence of those outside STEM fields. Thank you.


          • It’s the scientist who wrote the article we are commenting on. Layla Katiree (don’t quote me on the spelling). She very well may not have real world experience. Many of these scientists live in the lab. They have no idea how the cultivation of the seeds/plants is hurting the environment. All they are aware of, and I am not speaking about all of them, is the successes and failures they have seen in the lab atmosphere.

          • Karen, you make a reasonable point that some lab scientists are unaware of real world experience. That said, scientists familiar with plant and animal biotechnology, who are not just lab scientists, but do work in the field, are almost 100% supportive of genetic engineering and its diminished impact on the environment. If are interested in a field view of the controversy, I highly recommend reading “Tomorrow’s Table” co-authored by a husband-wife team…he is an organic farmer and professor of organic agriculture and she is a plant biotechnologist. They discuss the plusses and minuses of both organic and GE agriculture–very informative.

          • Instead of trying to dissect who I am and what sort of “real world experience” I have, why don’t you comment on what I’ve written? Do any of the studies in the article by Collective Evolution “prove that GMOs are harmful”?

      • Please explain why you would support a product that has achieved none of its stated goals. It does not increase yields. It has not reduced pesticide use. It does not in any way create a positive outcome for stockholder or customers. Has highly questionable safety, costs more than traditional methods, is banned in every country that has done independent testing? I can think of only one reason. That same reason that people had for supporting smoking and tobacco. Can you guess what that reason is?

          • Ellen, your link to the althealthworks website turned up a bogus article. Suicides by Indian farmers are mostly related to the intent of the current government & prime minister (Moti) to return India to the caste system that has plagued their society for millenia. Moti’s the same guy who tried to cast the N.Y. justice system in a bad light for prosecuting the diplomat’s wife for fraud, which she clearly was guilty of, but tried to hide behind her husband’s diplomatic immunity. The anti-GMO faction has tried to paint the picture that farmers are resorting to suicide because of their adoption of modern technology (which by the way Indira Gandhi strongly supported), when in fact it is due to their refusal to regress to the feudal system that had kept them in perpetual poverty. Any link to GMOs has been soundly debunked.

  1. Thanks for listing just a few of the ever increasing evidence that GMOs and glyphosate is potentially a terrible experiment foisted on people, especially here in the US. If GMOs are so great, I would expect the producers would not want to hide from me that they are in the food products that I buy.

    Here is a good article which I think sums up a serious lack of scientific integrity. The intellectual dishonesty of folks who claim to be scientists and who, based on a 90 day test by Monsanto on rats that GMO is essentially equal to non GMO is a modern travesty. I think the following article following puts it in perspective and reintroduces The Precautionary Principal into the discussion and points the way to go before we poison more and more people, land and animals.

    Nassim Taleb, a renowned New York University (NYU) professor recently raised eyebrows when he said genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have the potential to cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.”
    What effects will the genetic manipulation of nature have on our worldwide ecosystem? Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

    Taleb, who specializes in risk engineering, has outlined the dangers of GMOs in The Precautionary Principle, a paper recently made available to the public.

    The threat
    Often, GMO seeds are favored because
    of their ability to yield larger harvests and avoid certain pests or
    weeds that usually eat up some of their productivity, reports Daily Finance.

    Taleb’s primary concern isn’t that ingesting GMOs is necessarily bad
    for people; rather, he’s focused on what effects the genetic
    manipulation of nature will have on the worldwide ecosystem. While Taleb
    concurs the risk of any one GMO seed ruining the planet is incredibly
    small, he argues that people are underestimating the domino effect of
    risk that’s involved.

    For example, if one genetically modified seed produced holds a 0.1
    percent chance of causing a catastrophic breakdown of the ecosystem,
    then the probability of such an event will only increase with each new
    seed that’s developed.

    Taleb writes that given enough time the “total ecocide barrier” is bound to be hit despite incredibly small odds.

    The argument hinges on the fact that GMOs represent a systemic, and
    not localized, risk. As GMO goods continue to be exported to countries
    throughout the world, the idea of being able to control GMOs in nature
    is impossible to guarantee.

    As Taleb says, “There are mathematical limitations to predictability
    in a complex system, ‘in the wild,’ which is why focusing on the
    difference between local (or isolated) and systemic threats is a central
    aspect of our warnings.”

    Responding to critics

    GMO supporters have criticized his work as GMOs have yet to
    significantly harm the ecosystem, but Taleb argues that point
    strengthens his theory.

    Daily Finance reports:

    The Precautionary Principle—which
    is what Taleb calls his warning—is all about managing risk, not about
    waiting for it to surface. The fact that GMOs are a systemic entity is
    undeniable. Taleb is equally skeptical of all entities that carry
    systemic risk—like too-big-to-fail banks.

    We don’t, as Taleb says, argue that a
    game of Russian roulette is safer with each empty barrel we find. It is,
    in fact, more dangerous.

    Visit EcoWatch’s FOOD and GMO pages for more related news on this topic.

    • It is a principle held by Ivory Tower academics who have not found their way in the real world. and by no means is it a validation of the supposed dangers of GMOs. Would Mr. Taleb have approved the use of the internal combustion engine, considering in hindsight, what a transformative and troubling technology it appears to be?

      • I think your comparison to the internal combustion engine is childish my friend. The principal is to keep just such experiments as GMOs on people and corporate for profit only, academic and bought science from hurting humans. FIRST DO NOT HARM is another principal it encourages. In the case of GMOs we are talking about millions and millions of folks, especially in the US, getting sicker and sicker from food. We can’t even have GMO designation on our labels. This is the height of hypocrisy of an industry telling us their stuff is great and then denying us the right to know what is in our food. How is that for being proud of their products.

        I am happy to see that the jig is about up and it is just a matter of time before the whole GMO to sell chemicals house of cards will be coming down. Here is wonderful news that has broken through the monied political hold of Monsanto on our government agencies.

        Feds to Phase Out GMO Farms and Neonicotinoid Pesticides at Wildlife Refuges


        I am not against progress and even against genetic research and good results but given what I have learned I am totally appalled at what Monsanto and the AgroChem industry has and is doing to us to make money. I live about 10 minutes from Monsanto’s research in St. Louis County MO and just seeing their name any more turns my stomach.

      • You can stop the advance of a combustion engine any time you want. A better comparison would be when you compare GMO with the Ebola virus. The problem there is that it is a long way away from the (more) civilized world. If a real, uncontrollable problem occurs with GMO, it is likely going to be in the USA. That is, if you ignore serious issues like CKD, that, at the moment, may not be directly linked with GMO but with Glyphosate, the spread of GMO and the increased use of Glyphosate wil make it happen elsewhere. It seems that, especially for Americans, what happens a long way away from home (but caused by American products) is just collateral damage to keep the price of food on their plates low while maximizing the profits for a few.

      • That does a disservice to genuine academics, who are typically smart enough to question a doctrine like the PP. Most of us can’t afford ivory for our towers, either…

        At the heart of the PP is the same fallacy as in Pascal’s Wager: you can’t make a cost/benefit analysis without considering context. Here is a decent formulation of the argument: http://www.skeptiforum.org/the-missing-context-in-the-mathematical-argument-against-gmos/

        In the case of GMOs the relevant context is that banning transgenic technology does not stop gene transfer in agriculture; and since transgenics are a more controlled technique than mutagenesis or hybridising, they are in fact arguably safer. So under the PP’s immortal guidance we should reasonably ban *non*-GMOs, which are a genetic timebomb ;-) Or more reasonably, accept that GMO technology does not add a significant risk to what has been done for millennia. I’m astonished that Nick Taleb, who is not mathematically or logically incompetent, apparently hasn’t spotted that, but perhaps he’s too busy surfing the wave of being hailed as a perceptive soothsayer of disaster. Of course, if you keep predicting disasters everywhere you look, eventually you’ll be proven right.

        The main fans of the PP are not genuine academics or risk assessment experts, but those who want to ban something. For them the PP is a pseudo-respectable argument that is _always_ on their side. Pity it doesn’t stand up to the slightest rational scrutiny… as decent academics with a little mathematical competence know very well.

  2. @Layla—Some heavyweight debunking on your part! Thanks.

    Each of these 10 “smoking guns” could use a more detailed discussion. A common theme among many of the articles and studies is that they are “models”, but as G. Box said, “…all models are wrong, but some are useful.” The common weakness is that the authors do not present reasonable arguments for why they think that the models can be extrapolated to real-world effects in human. This is “science by innuendo”.

  3. Overall these ten studies do bring up issues regardless of author’s points of contention. GMOs have never been conclusively and completely proven to be safe. As far as glyphosate consider the adjuvants contained in Roundup and real danger becomes apparent.

    Jul 30, 2014 For the first time in the world Roundup ( not just glyphosate) has been studied in the blood of rats, showing at .1ppb ( 50% less than is allowed in EU drinking water and thousands of times lower than is allowed in USA drinking water) rats showed sex hormone changes. The study shows that the adjuvents ( other chemicals) in Roundup make glyphosate 1000 more toxic. This ground breaking study proves the EPA does not have evidence to say Roundup is safe and should be recalled immediately. Nicholas speaks with Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America at the “Food Safety and Sustainable Agriculture Forum 2014”


      • This is about the adjuvants in roundup and comparison to safety levels. By the way the retraction was political. Many scientist stand by his study and has been republished. Did you view the video?

        • Hi Ron, I did view the video. I assumed that the study and the rats that the person in the video is referring to is Seralini’s study. If my assumption is incorrect, I’d appreciate it if you’d point me to the study/research article. Thanks!

        • Adjuvant are short lived and dissociated when they enter the plant. Studying concentrated product in vitro is a very poor proxy for product applied at GRAS rates and having the registered pre harvest interval pass.

          • Did you view this video? One drop roundup out 10 billion drops of water fed to rats. Why do you call this concentrated? At any rate who wants any part of roundup on the food we eat.

          • Hi Ron, as mentioned above, I did view the video. And if it’s referring to Seralini’s study, a review of the data has found that the rat’s symptoms were due to chance/random. Please see this report from the European Food Safety Authorities who reviewed Seralini’s data: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2986.pdf
            The Wikipedia entry also has many useful links for further reading:

            Regarding your comment “who wants any part of round-up on the food we eat”, you can always stick to buying food under the USDA’s organic label if you are concerned. However, I encourage you to read the following piece for an overview of the amount of Round-Up used in agriculture and its relative toxicity: http://kfolta.blogspot.ca/2014/07/glyphosate-math.html

          • The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had to reject the study in order to protect its own previous opinions on this and other GMOs. The findings of this study, if confirmed, would overturn regulatory assumptions of safe levels of glyphosate and Roundup.

            Séralini’s Rebuttal

            Séralini’s study showed that 90-day tests commonly done on GM foods are not long enough to see long-term effects like cancer, organ damage, and premature death. The first tumours only appeared 4-7 months into the study.

            Summary answer:

            The Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat strain that Séralini used is also used in long-term 2-year toxicity and carcinogenicity studies by industry and academic scientists, as well as in 90-day studies on GMOs. If this was the wrong type of rat for Séralini to use, it was the wrong rat in all these other studies, and market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were authorized on the basis of these studies should be revoked.

            Detailed answer:

            Critics say that the Sprague-Dawley (SD) strain of rat that Séralini used is naturally prone to developing tumours, so the increased tumour incidence found in the rats exposed to NK603 maize and Roundup may have been “spontaneous” – that is, they would have happened even without NK603 maize and Roundup. They conclude that Séralini’s tumour findings are meaningless.1

            However, the SD rat is a standard choice for long-term (2-year +) studies for tumour-causing and carcinogenic effects by independent and industry-sponsored researchers.2 3 4 5 6 The National Toxicology Program in the US uses the same SD rat from the same source as Séralini’s rats (Harlan) for its long-term 2-year carcinogenicity and toxicology studies.7 None of these researchers or research programmes has been challenged over their use of SD rats.

            “An absurd argument” – researcher

            In a newspaper interview, the Swiss scientist Dr Angelika Hilbeck of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology replied to the argument that Séralini chose a cancer-prone rat strain:

            “This is an absurd argument. Séralini chose the same strain of rat as Monsanto. Do we really think that a substance should be tested on an animal that is not sensitive to it? With these defamations they wanted to distract us from the fact that Séralini used the same methodology as Monsanto. Because if you take Séralini seriously as a researcher, you have to take seriously his study and the comparison with Monsanto’s study. That would put into question Monsanto’s study and hence the approval of GM maize.”
            Monsanto and other manufacturers of glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient of Roundup herbicide, used the SD rat in their two-year carcinogenicity and multigenerational reproductive toxicity studies that form the basis of the EU authorization of glyphosate.8 9

            If the SD rat was the wrong rat for Séralini to use, it was also the wrong rat for all these other studies. So market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were granted on the basis of these studies – including glyphosate – should be revoked.

            The SD rat is also often used by industry in its 90-day tests on GMOs submitted to gain regulatory authorization. This includes Monsanto’s 90-day test on NK603 maize.10

            Séralini correctly used the same rat strain that Monsanto used, in order to make his study comparable to Monsanto’s. This is in line with the recommendation of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in its chronic toxicity protocol 453.11 The OECD says that for a chronic toxicity study, the same rat that was used in the 90-day test should be used. If Séralini had used a different strain, he would undoubtedly have been criticized for doing so and thus making his study not comparable with Monsanto’s 90-day test.

            Is the SD rat abnormally prone to developing tumours?

            The SD rat is about as prone to developing tumours as humans living in industrialized countries. Researchers view it as an excellent human-equivalent model for tumour-causing and cancer-causing effects.12

            This includes the fact that in rats, as in humans, the number of tumours increases with age.12 Far from muddying the picture, as critics of Séralini charge, the fact that old rats get more tumours accurately reflects the reality of human ageing.

            Background rate of tumours does not matter

            The background rate of tumours in the strain of rat that Séralini used does not matter and does not invalidate his findings, as explained by Judy Carman, associate professor at Flinders University School of the Environment and director, Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Australia.

            Dr Carman said:

            “Séralini undertook a properly controlled experiment. This means that he used a control group that was not given any treatment. This control group tells you the background level of tumours in that type of rat. In science, you compare this background rate to the tumours you see in groups that you have ‘treated’ in some way. In Séralini’s case, the treatment groups were treated with GM NK603 maize and Roundup herbicide, separately and together.

            “The aim is to see if the treatment increases the amount of tumours above the background rate. The increase is measured using something called the ‘relative risk’. For example, if a treatment results in twice as many tumours as the control group, then you say that the treatment has a relative risk of 2.

            “Science is done this way because we know that there are background levels of tumours in animals and people. For example, you have a small risk of getting lung cancer even if you do not smoke. But you have a much higher risk of getting lung cancer if you do smoke. In fact, you have about a 12-fold higher risk of getting cancer if you smoke than if you do not smoke, so the relative risk here would be described as 12 for smoking and lung cancer.

            “The rats that Séralini used may or may not have a high background level of getting tumours. It does not matter. The fact is, rats in treatment groups had a higher chance of getting tumours than rats than the control rats that did not get the treatment. Saying that the results were invalidated because the control rats had a higher background rate of tumours is as absurd as saying that smoking cannot cause lung cancer in an ethnic group if that group has a naturally-occurring higher background rate of lung cancer.”
            In Séralini’s study, all treatments in both sexes increased large tumour incidence 2-3-fold in comparison to controls within the experiment.

            By the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80% of female animals had developed tumours in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumours per animal. In the control group, in contrast, only 30% of the rats had tumours.

            The most valid control for any experiment is the concurrent control – the control group within the experiment. However, industry and regulators often use “historical control data” from a variety of other experiments to evaluate the findings in any one experiment – generally to dismiss findings of toxic effects and to claim that the substance or product is safe.

            Use of historical control data is bad scientific practice unless the comparability of each data point is established. But since it is common in the field of industry/regulatory science, Séralini briefly and in a summary statement evaluated his findings against published historical control data on the SD rat.

            Séralini found that the treatments in his experiments increased the incidence of mammary tumours 2-3-fold in comparison to spontaneous tumour rates in the same SD strain from the same supplier (Harlan),13 and 3-fold in comparison to the largest study with 1329 SD female rats.14 In addition, tumous in Séralini’s treatment groups developed earlier and faster than in controls. This suggests that these tumours had a different biological basis from those arising spontaneously.

          • Hi Ron,
            Regarding the use of SD rats by the NIH, that’s a good point. However, the National Toxicology Program’s website states “The NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of rats (Harlan Sprague Dawley) and mice (B6C3F1/N hybrid) with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years.”
            Seralini only used 10 animals per group, which isn’t sufficient for the necessary statistical tests that need to be performed.

            I’m also copying the comments that I’ve provided for Jason Shoffler on the topic of the SD rats for your convenience:
            Regarding the fact that Seralini’s study was republished without another round of reviews, that information can be found here: http://retractionwatch.com/201
            The fact that SD rats are predisposed to tumors is well known. The earliest paper that I could find is from 1956 (http://cancerres.aacrjournals….. You claim that the tumor incidence is “slightly higher”. This paper from the 70s states that the SD rats had nearly 2x the rate of spontaneous tumors compared to controls (http://cancerres.aacrjournals….. As such, it’s a poor choice for long-term studies, which was the aim of Seralini’s study. I can’t imagine what sort of discussion was carried out in the lab when that choice was made… “Hmmm… we know that the rats are going to get tumors past 1 year. But lets keep them alive with their tumors, so that we can mimic industry standards. Since we’re not studying their tumors, it doesn’t really matter if they suffer.”?

          • Hi Ron, I sympathize. Wading through all this information can be hard. However, instead of simply cutting and pasting text from Seralini’s personal website, I strongly recommend that you read some of the citations that he makes, because they actually refute his own claims!

            For example, while Seralini used 10 rats per group in his infamous 2012 paper, Voss et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15588926) used 185! OECD guidelines clearly state that the statistical models to be used in a study should be defined in advance, and the number of animals should be selected accordingly. It is inconceivable to me that someone as experienced as Seralini did not know up-front that his study was doomed to failure, even though it cost several million euros to perform. To simplify the point: if I toss a coin three times and get ‘heads’ every time does this mean that I have a 2-headed coin? No. Seralini, and others, are trying to draw conclusions from finding the equivalent of three simultaneous ‘heads’. This is why mainstream science (and the original journal) have dismissed his results as being meaningless.

            Incidentally, I still don’t understand why activists groups like PETA are not publicly condemning the suffering and death of a large number of animals, for the sake of a meaningless study (or publicity stunt).

          • Hi Peter, sorry but some cut & paste is necessary when both sides need be represented. Let’s not be closed-minded.
            Here’s Seralini’s response to some questions.
            What did you study?

            Our team is the most-published in the world on the impact of GMOs and pesticides on health. We have done studies on human cells and on rats, both short- and long-term (two years). Regarding studies in rats, we were the first ones to study so many parameters (tens of thousands for blood and urine) and for so long. These rats consumed regularly GMOs with pesticides, and at the same doses, GMOs without pesticides. The aim was to find out where any toxicity came from. We were the only ones in the world to do this, as companies and health agencies had never ordered tests lasting longer than three months. But the study was retracted with great violence by the journal which published it after a former employee of Monsanto (Editor’s note: manufacturer of Roundup and GMO seeds) was introduced onto the editorial board of the journal. He is the former head of GMO toxicology dossiers at Monsanto.

            What did this study show? Cancer?

            No. We first observed the toxic effect on the animals’ liver. GMOs and Roundup also caused very significant kidney inflammation and necrosis of the liver. The other phenomenon was inversion of sex hormones (excess androgen in females and too little estrogen). The third effect was also hormonal: mammary tumors and pituitary gland tumours. In our study, we never mentioned the word cancer, because there were tumours, which varied from more or less cancerous. We recorded everything , but we did not conclude on cancer. Deaths resulted because they had grown very quickly (internal bleeding, pressure on vital organs … ). This happened both with the pesticide and with the GMO alone. We understand the mechanism of action. The enzyme that is overproduced in the GMO to make it tolerate Roundup began indirectly to decrease the levels of amino acids essential for protection of the liver and kidney.

            But this study is questionable because you used a type more susceptible to tumours, groups of animals that were too small …

            We had control rats (not fed GMOs), and we still found two to three times more tumors [in treated rats]. And there were inversions of sex hormones, which nobody mentioned. Furthermore, these rats have been used in 250 000 toxicology studies, and with ten rats per group (a total of 200), the number of rats was within the norms of general long-term toxicity studies [like Séralini’s]. And Monsanto used the same strain of rat to test its GM corn! And they measured ten rats per group, a total of 40. There are double standards! The study was criticised by some tens of people: health agencies and lobbies. For me, the retraction was due to the study’s symbolic effect. This [retraction] allows lobbyists to say there has never been any study showing a health risk with GMOs. So that the Commission can continue to allow GMOs and so that this little phrase can always be used. This study was withdrawn due to the wrongdoing of lobbyists in the system, under pressure from Monsanto. The arguments of the journal were the same as those of Monsanto. In any case, we stand by our findings! And we will republish [the study]!

          • Hi Ron,
            I don’t want to keep going back and forth, if you’re simply going to post information from Seralini’s page. I’ve provided my perspective, stating that the choice of the SD rat was not appropriate given the number used. Additionally, keeping the rats alive for so long once they had tumors was unethical. I already know what Seralini thinks. I’ve read his papers, comments and rebuttals. I want to know what you think. Are you OK with Seralini’s choice of model organism, knowing full well that they were going to get tumors in the long-term? Are you OK with the fact that not enough rats were used to perform any useful statistics?

          • Hi Layla,
            Just trying to see all sides to issue. I’m OK with Seralini’s rebuttal. Make sense to me. Criticism hinges on the incorrect assumption that Séralini’s study was intended to be a carcinogenicity study. You may say that Séralini used too few rats of a strain prone to tumours, so the tumours seen may have occurred spontaneously and no conclusions can be drawn. But Séralini’s study was a chronic toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study. The increase in tumour incidence was a surprise outcome. The logical response to the findings is not to dismiss them but to follow up with a full-scale carcinogenicity study on GM NK603 maize and Roundup.

          • @Ron—I’m still not clear. SPECIFICALLY, what do you think is the single most compelling observation in the Seralini safety study.

          • Hi Ron,
            I think we may have some common grounds here. Could we agree that Collective-Evolution’s piece is inaccurate or misleading in stating that a “Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors”?

          • The mammary adenomas were not significantly more frequent in the GMO-fed rats than in the controls.

          • that’s why it was ridiculous for Seralini to plaster photos all over. It was irrelevant to the study.

          • BioChicaGMO – why is it bad for Seralini to use a small number of this tumor-prone animal, but not for Monsanto?

          • Because the animals are prone to getting tumors in the long term, not short term. Monsanto’s studies are 90 days. For a 2 year study, which was Seralini’s goal, he should have either a) used something else or b) used more rats

          • 8 years prior to the Seralini study, Monsanto published it’s research in the same journal, research using the same number and kind of rats. Monsanto=9 month, Seralini=2 years. These are toxicology studies. The European commission is spending a lot of money to re-do Seralini’s study. They’re going to use 50 rats. So maybe we’ll get to the bottom of this. I don’t think your criticism regarding the rats is valid, since this is standard accepted protocol, even in 2 year studies. But I agree with those who say the tumorous rats were awful.

      • Retracted for inconclusive findings. A reason for which no other study has ever been retracted. There’s nothing wrong with the study that isn’t also wrong with Monsanto’s. Seralini has answered his critics, but those in the industry refuse to acknowledge.

        • How is a 90 day study the same as a 2 year study?
          I agree with you that the journal made a mistake in its retraction, but for a different reason: the journal should have just admitted that the paper shouldn’t have been published in the first place.

          This is from the notice in the retraction (http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/ ).

          “there is legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer-review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.”

          Sure, Seralini has provided a rebuttal, but he hasn’t fixed the issues with his paper. He even had a chance to address the issues that critics raised. Instead, he just published the same dataset.

          • The Seralini study used the same kind and number of rats as Monsanto has. If the study shouldn’t have been published because it was inconclusive, then Monsanto’s safety research is also inconclusive. Seralini’s was a toxicology study. He stupidly used the ugly tumors to gain notoriety. Perhaps he deserved to have his study retracted just because he acted so dumb. But the facts remain: the study is above reproach and there’s a double standard being applied here.

          • Well, Monsanto’s studies are 90 days. Seralini’s study was for 2 years. As such, the argument that “Seralini was doing the same thing as Monsanto. He should be able to use the same rats” is not a correct statement. The rats get tumors in the long term. Seralini’s study was a long term study. As such, he should have used a different rat or more rats, to be able to perform the appropriate statistics.

          • I think it’s all about the controls. This wasn’t cancer research, it was about toxicity. Seralini made it about the tumors by parading the poor lumpy rats all over the media.

            Here’s what I see: when Monsanto does a feeding trial, the focus is on all the results that appear to be normal, and those that indicate problems (like liver and kidney lesions) are hidden, or dismissed as insignificant. But when Seralini does the research, all the focus is on those abnormalities which are irrelevant (some parameters which seemed to favor eating glyphosate) and the relevant findings are ignored.

            At any rate, if you are correct, we had best notify the European Commission, since they are spending a lot of money to repeat these studies, and will use 50 rats. We want to make sure they use the right kind, right?


          • The EFSA has guidelines for exactly the sort of study Seralini did. Seralini followed feed guidelines and sex differentiation in results where Monsanto didn’t.

            Here’s the problem I see: Although 10 rats are recommended for toxicology assessment for 12 months, 50 rats are recommended for carcinogenic studies for 24 months. So the critism of two year of SD rats is not valid. And ten rats for a toxicology study is not wrong. Seralini did a 24 month toxicology study. When the rats showed up with tumors, he paraded them around (in order to wake people up most likely and get the public battle going)

            So, the question is: should he have conducted a 2 year toxicology study? I don’t know. I think the reasoning is that he’s trying to find out what long-term exposure means.

            So, what are the real reasons his study was withdrawn?

            The EU has requested that the EFSA do a 2 year carcinogenic study with 50 rats to follow up on Seralini’s results of MON603 research
            (page 70)

          • I’m not aware that Seralini is involved at all in the EFSA follow-up of his research on NK603 (which I linked you to a description of). Why would he be?

            You’ve linked to a project by the French Government: “Risk’OGM” (which apparently Seralini’s group must have belonged to and then dropped out of)

            These are 2 separate organizations. The EFSA is equivalent to the FDA for all of Europe. If you want updates, check with EFSA information sites. Sounds like your FB page isn’t a knowledgeable source.

          • The reason Monsanto’s trial didn’t comment on liver or kidney lesions was that there were no test article-related liver or kidney lesions found.

          • um

            the FDA was recently forced to put into the public domain 44,000 pages of confidential finding concerning Monsanto and their products, including studies on the hazards of using rBST hormones in milk production. And we’re supposed to trust GMOs?

          • False. There results were statistically significant but not reported by Monsanto. Monsanto was forced to release raw date which revealed the lesions.

          • The raw data revealed a statistically significant number of kidney and liver lesions. Monsanto dismissed and the data had to be forced public to reveal that fact.

          • You’re not looking at the same study. I’m talking about the one that Germany forced Monsanto to release its raw data on – which showed kidney and liver lesions. Monsanto didn’t report, although statistically significant.

          • Does Monsanto have edit capabilities on this site? I’ve made several replies here to Rosalind and they’ve all subsequently disappeared. Anyway – there were liver and kidney lesions. You’re obviously talking about a different study. I’m talking about the one that a German court forced Monsanto to release the raw data on.

            here’s hoping this posts!

          • Why shouldn’t the paper have been published and why was it retracted? Is your sole reason that there were too few rats and they were the wrong rats?

          • your link and quote are from the letter Hayes wrote to SEralini’s group. What he wrote was irrelevant to the validity of the study. The paper passed peer review and no one could find a legitimate reason to retract it, so they said the data was inconclusive. Again, no other paper has ever been retracted for being inconclusive. This was about industry pressure. That’s the long and the short of it.

      • I read how they collected their “comparable” corn for the study.

        We literally don’t feed animals that kind of nutritional variation, let alone do scientific studies.

  4. If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

    ― Malcolm X

    GLP:This claim is the infamous Seralini paper, which was retracted, and recently republished, in a different journal without being peer reviewed.

    ME:The Seralini may just be the most peer-reviewed paper in the history of peer-review.

    GLP:The paper identified tumors in rats that were fed GMOs and/or the herbicide glyphosate longterm.

    ME:Actually, there was kidney and liver toxicity as well as severe hormonal imbalances. Professor Seralini was looking for those. The tumors were a side note and complete surprise, not the main focus of the study.

    GLP:But the strain of rat used was predisposed to tumors.

    ME:Sort of true. The SD rats do tend to have a slightly higher tumor rate after 18 months than the other popular lab rat. So, it should be noted, it lowers the statistical weight after the 18month mark of cancer tumors developing. In Seralini’s case, the females started developing tumors in 4 mos. So, it should be noted, but unless there is any new evidence regarding the SD rats tumor rates, that revelation doesn’t really effect anything. Really seems to be a favorite with the GMO lobby for some reason.

    Now, since it was a chronic toxicity study the cancer has zero bearing on the toxicity results. The strain and number of rats was selected specifically to mimic industry safety test that Professor Seralini was duplicating.

    Sadly, Seralini was forced to do this because Monsanto refused to follow the scientific method like they were supposed to. Instead of duplicating the anomalous findings from their safety test that the general rules of ethics and good science would dictate, they, instead, decided that science NOR public health were in the best interest of the shareholders.

    So, Monsanto’s general handling of the study, by the strictest definition of the word, was unscientific. And quite clearly unethical due to the public heath hazard potential. Which, sadly is the level of ethics we should expect from them but don’t. It should also be noted, and taken seriously, that they probably have more potential health hazards they are hiding….

    So unscientific scum bag on one side….

    And on the other side, Seralini, who not only decided to follow the scientific method for what appears to be a growing social concern, he even did so facing constant harassment and threats to his career.

    GLP:The paper did not perform statistical analyses and used too few rats, so it was not possible to determine if the tumors were due to the food, the chemical or to the fact that the strain of rats would get tumors regardless of what they were fed.

    ME:Again, to rehash this point. Its a shame that the study is over a year old and Entine still doesn’t know, or won’t acknowledge what kind of study it is. Which is stated clearly in big bold letters on the front top of the study, cant miss it if you actually look at it.

    As I stated above, the tumors started at 4 – 7 months so the slight increase in tumor rates after 18 has little bearing on weight of his cancer findings. And it absolutely has no baring, whatsoever, on the main purpose of the test, the toxicity findings ,which was multiple organ damage and hormonal imbalances. So, GLP gets an F for journalism and a D- for scientific accuracy.

    GLP:Finally, the findings from Seralini’s paper are contrary to other long-term feeding studies. An overview of the criticisms regarding this paper can be found here.

    ME:There really is not a huge pool of long term studies to reference. Infact, Professor Seralini’s is one of the most robust, detailed and in depth chronic toxicity studies for GMO maize Ever..

    What there is an over abundance of, is these 30 and 90 day industry feeding trials, which are included with that big list of safety studies PR package the lobby throws at everybody. They don’t call it corporate junk science for nothing, folks

    • Hi Jason,
      Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Regarding the fact that Seralini’s study was republished without another round of reviews, that information can be found here: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/26/republished-seralini-gmo-rat-study-was-not-peer-reviewed-says-editor/
      The fact that SD rats are predisposed to tumors is well known. The earliest paper that I could find is from 1956 (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194.full.pdf). You claim that the tumor incidence is “slightly higher”. This paper from the 70s states that the SD rats had nearly 2x the rate of spontaneous tumors compared to controls (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.long). As such, it’s a poor choice for long-term studies, which was the aim of Seralini’s study. I can’t imagine what sort of discussion was carried out in the lab when that choice was made… “Hmmm… we know that the rats are going to get tumors past 1 year. But lets keep them alive with their tumors, so that we can mimic industry standards. Since we’re not studying their tumors, it doesn’t really matter if they suffer?”

      • As I understand it, Monsanto used the same breed of rat to do their 90 day studies, that Seralini was trying to duplicate with a longer exposure time. Seralini was also criticized for the amount of rats tested. Again, it was the dame amount that Monsanto used.
        And to Repeat what Jason pointed out, Seralini was not testing for or looking for tumors. Continuing to use that as an excuse to discredit the study is ridiculous.

        • Hi Michael: by definition, Seralini was no longer duplicating Monsanto’s study when he decided to extend it to 2 years. It’s a fundamental aspect of animal research that you pick your organism based on the goals of your study. His goal was to perform a long-term feeding study using genetically modified feed, as outlined in the very first sentence of the paper’s abstract: “The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize
          (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and
          Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and
          adjuvants) in drinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats. “

          • Seralini’s mistake was parading his tumorous rats all over the media. If he’d just put the study out – which was valid and still is – there would be much less fanfare (but the industry would still have gone after him). Kidney and liver problems showed up in a re-analysis of Monsanto’s data done by Seralini some years earlier (don’t remember if it was the same GMO). The industry hates Seralini, and all GMO proponents insist that anything he’s done or does is automatically invalid because he’s Seralini.

          • A study is only as valid as its methodology and his was flawed, at best. These kinds of things have to be held to the highest ethical and academic standards because of the potential for harm they could cause. (see the vaccines cause autism debacle)

            If someone can’t be bothered to cross every t and dot every i then they shouldn’t be doing the study.

          • I agree. But why is Seralini held to a higher standard than Monsanto? Please look for later comments in this discussion between myself and the author of the post. Also, there’s plenty of info online about Monsanto’s own study of MON863, and Seralini’s subsequent examination of the raw data, which, along with other independent review, proved to reveal critical oversights.

          • Because Seralini attempted to prove harm. He was the one who chose to use the rats he did. He was the one who chose to promote his study as being unbiased when it was objectively anything but.

            He rigged the results and, therefor, cannot be taken seriously. If you already know what the results will be before you even get out of the gate, as he had to have known given the well known reputation of that breed of rat, then how can the results be honest ones?

          • The rats he used are the standard for these sorts of toxicology studies. They were the same rats used by Monsanto. The debate, as far as I can see, is over whether it was proper to use the smaller amount of rats with a longer term of study.

            What do you mean he “rigged” the results? The study was retracted for “inconclusive results”. There was no fraud, no protocol mistakes – just inconclusive results. No other study has ever been removed from the literature for inconclusive results.

            Please read the content of my conversation with this post’s author here:

          • Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the definition of rigged.

            He used rats known for accelerated tumor growth, which strikes me as somewhat irresponsible given that you’d want rats that WON’T grow tumors if you spill water on them for this kind of thing.

            But hey maybe I’m just being silly in expecting honesty in these kinds of studies.

          • Sprague Dawley rats are bred for this sort of research. They need to have a certain susceptibility to various pathologies in order to be useful for research. Again, this is the standard and was used by Monsanto to do the same research on the same foods. The only difference was length of study. As long as there are good controls, the tumors are only significant for their cruelty. The difference between control rats and rats fed the GMO is what’s important, not that the rats got tumors. This was a toxicology investigation.

            Please find my earlier conversation for more information if you wish. I provided links there. Nothing was “rigged” – the study was peer-reviewed and found to be sound science. Again, the question seems to be about the number of rats for a 2-year toxicology study. Monsanto used the same number and kind of rats, but only for 3 months. Why would you expect to find evidence of toxicity in such a short time? seralini expanded the research, but should have used more rats because of the longer time frame. In two year cancer studies, 50 rats are used. As I explained in the comments I tried to link you to, the EFSA is spending a ton of money to expand this research and settle the issue.

          • No. You see the reason that the study was retracted was because of the type of rat used in it. I have actually read about the retraction there sport and the main problem that many people had with it was the susceptibility of the rats to tumors, since that was what it was attempting to prove. (which is the very definition of rigging the results. Which I know because I understand how language works and how to put 2 and 2 together with this little thing called reason. It’s useful in sniffing out horse manure from reality)

          • A. The author of the above piece does all of that in spades, ergo I have no reason to further beat my head against the wall of concrete that exists betwixt yon ears.

            B. I’ve not read those studies nor do I care to because people have been eating this kind of food for more than a decade and, guess what, there was no massive break down in society the way that they keep claiming. In fact I’ll go a step further and say that the anti-science brigade bares singular responsibility for every death of starvation in areas where engineered crops COULD HAVE FREAKING GROWN had the science been able to develop further. You know those crops that are designed to grow in regions hit by massive droughts? Yeah. Every drop of innocent blood is on the hands of the luddites who frightened the people who needed that food for their survival into not using it.

            Now all our cards are on the table. At least I can sleep at night.

          • Your reply is baffling. The piece above doesn’t talk about Monsanto’s study of NK603 at all.

            If you don’t want to read the studies, and prefer to base your safety assessment on “we’ve been eating it and nothing’s happened” – that’s your choice. But don’t pretend it’s scientific. We’ve haven’t been eating GMOs – we’ve been eating non-protein extracts as ingredients in processed foods. But there’s protein in GMO corn – and that is likely in our food. But you have no way to know whether that has or hasn’t negatively impacted the health of those who’ve eaten it. There’s no way to correlate health effects with consumption.

            As far as innocent blood on the hands of “luddites” who’ve frightened people – that’s and absurd and hysterical statement. Give me one example of a GMO crop whose lack of availability has caused detriment to anyone. Most drought-resistant varieties have been conventionally developed, some with marker-assisted selection. I defy you to find one example of a GMO that could have prevented death and didn’t because someone scared the farmer into not planting it or people into not eating it. And I’m not talking about the US dropping pig feed in Africa – I’m talking about those drought or flood resistant GMOs you seem to think could save the world, Where are they? We have one DR corn in the US – of course modified for pesticide. It doesn’t yield as well as the non-GMO. Which is the trouble we’re currently having with Golden Rice too. These plants are weaker versions of their parents outside their trait. Bad news for farmers who need yield over convenience, and aren’t subsidized by tax dollars to pay for pesticides.

          • Sorry, you made me mad with your stupid insults. What I wrote makes it look like I’m against agricultural GMOs. I’m not. But I’m so weary of this rhetoric about saving the world and equivalence to non-GMO development. It’s false.

          • I have read Seralini’s studies and they are absolute rubbish, and a disgrace to the peer-reviewers and editors who let them through.
            I have a decade’s experience in running toxicology studies in a wide range of animals including laboratory rats,in contract toxicology laboratories.

          • with a whole decade of experience, you’re about halfway to becoming an authority on your very first study subject, since long term effects studies require at least twenty years for effects in humans to be reliable. Oh…my mistake. your studies are on animals, and no experience in actual human studies?

          • Lifetime effects take only 2 years in rats.

            I haven’t conducted human studies, but I have reviewed hundreds. That’s my job.

            Seralini’s studies were in rats. You do realize that?

            How many 20-year human studies have you conducted?

          • The study was not retracted because of the breed of rat used. It was retracted because the data did not support the conclusions. The conclusions were unfounded.

          • Sprague Dawley rats are not a good choice for chronic studies because the females have a very high background incidence of mammary adenomas. Also, Sprague Dawleys are very prone to developing liver and kidney pathology with age.

          • Monsanto didn’t control for sex differences in their results. Nor did they use an isogenic food control as far as I can tell. The importance was in the controls. Many of the rats that lived displayed pathology. However, the GMO fed rats developed them multiple times faster. The results were sex-dependent, a differentiation which Monsanto chose to overlook in their own studies.

          • As I said in the conversation I’ve referred you to – it’s about the controls. The test group developed tumors 2-3x more rapidly than the control, and well within the typical time frame of a toxicology study (which is what it was)

          • He attempted to prove harm because the CRIIGEN Institute where he works gets a lot of funding from Greenpeace, which opposes GMOs, and ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune’. Also Seralini has published a number of trashy paperbacks scaremongering about GMOs, and obviously he is interested in boosting his royalties.

          • @Mlema—Am I right in thinking that you have not actually read the Hammond (ref. 1) or Seralini (ref. 2) papers? If you had, you would appreciate that they are as different as night and day. Seralini was NOT just a longer-term repeat of the Hammond 90-day study. (For example, 40% of the data was not supported by a relevant control)!

            In order to help move this debate forward, perhaps you would tell us what do you think was the single most significant result from the Seralini paper?

            The statement by the editor that the Seralini group paper was retracted because the results were “inconclusive” was simply a very polite, euphemistic, way of saying that the data they generated were not consistent with the conclusions that they claimed. In plain language, there were no meaningful results! Without a result (just meaningless data), there was no point to the paper. (As an aside, the real scandal here is incompetence of the journal in not flagging the problems of the paper in the first place).

            The Seralini group chose to show results of biochemical analysis obtained after 15 months (not 2 years), but failed to present them in a conventional fashion (i.e. mean values, plus or minus the standard deviation—unlike Hammond et al.). Why? Could it be because no significant differences were seen? Instead, they chose to use an exotic mathematical analysis (Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis) which I have never seen used for analyzing this kind of controlled study. Perhaps they really figured out a radically different way of analyzing the data. If so, great; but it was incumbent on them to demonstrate that it was valid, and make the case why this kind of approach was used instead of simply repeating what Hammond et had done? The phrase, “lies, damn lies, and statistics” seems to be appropriate here.

            Even today, the Seralini group shows no remorse, but shamelessly presents pictures of rats with gross deformities on their website—clearly designed to imply to the non-science public that a real, serious, effect was seen. I think that this display of images is the most damning demonstration of the true motivation of this group: creation of fear, in the absence of data. This is no longer science, just politics.

            Mlema, I admire your courage in defending the work of the Seralini group. Where we part ways is a basic principle of science: by default, any claim is assumed to be untrue, unless proven to the contrary. The Seralini group skillfully uses suggestion and innuendo to side-step this principle. Doubtless—unlike a naive undergraduate student—they were highly qualified to have designed and executed a clear, definitive, study to investigate the potential harmful effects of longer-term GMO corn or glyphosate. Since they didn’t—at the risk of trying to guess at motivation—one simple interpretation of this debacle is that they executed a small, poorly-controlled, study with the intent of suggesting some deleterious effects. Many people without a scientific training were fooled. (Personally, I would have given an undergraduate student a D+ and told them to re-do the study design—but that’s just me).

            ref. 1: Hammond, B., Dudek, R., Lemen, J., Nemeth, M., 2004. Results of a 13 week safety

            assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem.

            Toxicol. 42, 1003–101

            ref. 2: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0278691512005637/1-s2.0-S0278691512005637-main.pdf?_tid=dd9f5b04-49d0-11e4-bf06-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1412212394_554bd061f62ddbc9a49f160a273acf66

          • Seralini is a long-time critic of safety assessments of GMOs.

            The two papers were different because Monsanto’s was flawed. All your criticisms have been answered by Seralini, including those against his analytical methods. You can read for yourself here:


            And since the only conclusion Seralini drew was: “Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to
            thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial
            formulations.” – I fail to see how the results didn’t justify the conclusions. I find the results concerning.


            Science isn’t in the business of being polite. The study was retracted because of industry pressure. There was no fraud and no error. Lack of conclusiveness isn’t a reason to retract a paper. We have plenty of published papers with no conclusive results. Read Snell et al metastudy on feeding trials.

            I don’t like Seralini’s dramatics. But let’s face it – the industry would have been all over this study with or without his antics. They’ve taken down other scientists who are too public with negative findings. Seralini got what he wanted: publicity for his research. He stirred up the debate again and drew attention to the lax safety testing we have on these pesticide-driven GMOs.

            You say:
            “Where we part ways is a basic principle of science: by default, any claim is assumed to be untrue, unless proven to the contrary.”

            So, since the nature of development of some Gmos makes them more prone to changes that need to be thoroughly investigated pre-commercialization, based on your maxim, I would say that Monsanto needs to offer some proof that it’s product is safe. The claim that NK603 is safe to eat has not been proven, therefore, you must assume it to be untrue.

            In the US, assessment practices don’t account for evaluation of the toxicity of the actual food, let alone the food with the pesticides used in conjunction.

            The Monsanto study failed to use isogenic controls, to begin with. Also, it’s dosing didn’t follow protocol. And Seralini has shown that 90 day tests are too short. So unless you can show me how Hammond’s study proved the safety of NK603, your own motto makes your support of Monsanto’s safety research invalid.

            Seralini’s study drew attention to the fact that current protocols for feeding trials on GMOs need to be improved. The EFSA has invested a large sum of money to conduct research which will hopefully settle some of these debates. They will use 50 rats in a similar 2-year study. And yes you’re right about the length of time Seralini looked at for the actual toxicity study. That makes the results even more concerning.

          • I like people telling me that they think things are dangerous. It makes others look into it. We have blindly accepted that corporations are doing things as they should for the people with the appropriate amount of study, deliberation and care. There is a shadow on that. These corporations have been asked to make it right. They have, instead, decided not to allow anyone to see their research. Not allow the public to know what they are eating, and have further cost their shareholder hundreds of millions in lost profit through mismanagement and deception. Sounds to me like the science is almost secondary to the fiduciary responsibility of the companies involved. I would thing the FCC and the FDA would want to look a lot deeper.

          • I invite you to look at the GENERA database, where you can search for papers on the safety of genetically modified crops based on funding.

          • BioChicaGMO, can you link us to what you think may be the best example of a paper on GENERA that shows the safety of GE crops?

            Since all GE crops are different, do you feel each one should be similarly tested?

          • We’re all expressing opinions here. Some should be taken seriously because they’re justified with rational explanations, facts, or links to explanations and facts. I don’t see that your opinions should be taken seriously.

          • Seralini’s study was retracted due to inconclusive findings. Saying that he has no understanding of pathology or statistics is just you not liking his work.

          • He isn’t the only scientist whose examination of the study and the raw data revealed poor controls and the dismissal of statistically significant results.

          • What Seralini did to Monsanto’s raw data is what statisticians call ‘torturing the data until they confess’. The hilarious thing is that when by throwing a huge number of statistical tests at the data until he managed to find some significance, he misinterpreted the results in biological terms. When he found statistical significance in *declines* in liver enzymes and kidney parameters that are only adverse findings when those parameters are *increased* he called them liver and kidney changes. If they were be taken seriously (which no competent clinical pathologist would do) they would have to be interpreted to mean that the GM feed made the rats’ livers and kidneys healthier than those of the control rats.

          • We are obviously talking about different studies. The Monsanto study I’m referring to was also re-examined by a German group after a court order forced Monsanto to release their raw data. This is the study I’m saying showed liver and kidney damage. And it had nothing to do with enzymes. The raw data can be found online.

          • This isn’t true. I’m not sure what study you’re referring to, but the raw data from the Monsanto study is online. There were kidney and liver lesions – statistically significant – and Monsanto ignored that. German courts forced monsanto to release the data and hired their own scientists to review it. They found the same shortcomings as Seralini. Monsanto tried to go back and use historical controls to compensate for their lack of good method, but they really couldn’t put the cat back in the bag.

          • Are you actually addressing the raw data of Monsanto’s own study on MON863? Seralini wasn’t the only one that found problems with Monsanto’s research: failure to use isogenic controls, failure to discriminate sex differences, and failure to report statistically significant data on kidney and liver lesions.

          • The raw data was kept secret by Monsanto until a German court ordered it released. Have you looked at it? You can find it online if you really want to.

          • My reply appears above. Can you link to the paper in which you say Seralini “tortured” Monsanto’s raw data?

          • @Mlema, You are obviously one of the courageous few who is willing to publicly defend the work of the Seralini group—even the infamous 2012 paper! What do YOU consider to be the most convincing conclusion from this paper (as it relates to the original topic of this thread—the safety of GM-based crops)?

          • Peter – that’s the thing. Seralini didn’t draw any conclusions. All he did was report his findings. There was no fraud or misconduct. He followed protocol to the letter. The paper was inconclusive. It only points to the fact that more independent research is needed because Monsanto’s research was in question, and Seralini’s repeat (with extended time) raised issues. As I mentioned in another comment somewhere on this page, the ESFA will oversee a study using more rats for the 2 year period.

          • Whenever I reply to Rosalind below, my reply disappears. So here’s my reply – let’s see if it posts here.

            Are you actually addressing the raw data of Monsanto’s own study on
            MON863? Seralini wasn’t the only one that found problems with
            Monsanto’s research: failure to use isogenic controls, failure to
            discriminate sex differences, and failure to report statistically
            significant data on kidney and liver lesions.

            The raw data was kept secret by Monsanto until a German court ordered
            it released. Have you looked at it? You can find it online if you
            really want to.

          • All old rats get kidney and liver problems.
            Seralini’s claim in an earlier study that young rats got kidney and liver problems was based on his lack of understanding of clinical pathology. He called deleterious effects when the liver and kidney biomarkers in the serum went down, when in fact that indicates healthier livers and kidneys, not sicker ones, in the GMO-fed rats.

          • Do you care to show us what you’re talking about? What earlier study? One of Seralini’s? Monsanto’s? Can you link us to the study? If it’s Seralini’s you’ll be sure to have access.

          • LOL- Our test is good. It was 90 days. Your test is bad. Exactly the same test. just two years. LOL. You guys are the biggest liars i can imagine. You would gladly poison children to keep your pathetic jobs, than come clean and retain your ethics. Pretty low, boys. Pretty low.

          • The point is, if you keep female Sprague Dawley rats longer than 90 days, you are going to start seeing mammary adenomas, which Seralini did, but he was too spectacularly ignorant to realize that Sprague Dawley female rats are extremely prone to getting mammary adenomas.

    • I don’t have much of any in depth knowledge of any of the 10 points here, except that I read quite a bit about the Seralini study at the time and the points you make about the misdirection in this article are sterling. Thank you! I won’t have to repeat them elsewhere. I’m not a biological scientist but I can read misdirection when I see them.

    • Old rats get pathological changes in their livers and kidneys. That’s a done experiment. There was no dose-response relationship between dose and the liver or kidney pathologies, or in the incidence of mammary adenomas either.

  5. Anyone up for some reading and possible debunking? This was sent in response to some of my comments. I already read about some of these studies but I haven’t read them myself and I’m in grad school so I already have a lot of fun things to read (I promise, I will get to these because it’s the responsible thing to do). etherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number 2 February 2004.online http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html
    These workers suggest that there is transfer but that the rate of transfer is “low” (IMHO any is a bit much considering consumption over time and the short bacterial reproductive time.)


    has a lot of information


    See also


    • Good question. The first thing to keep in mind is that the DNA from a GM cell behaves no differently than the DNA from a conventional or organic food product. The first paper that you’ve cited from Nature Biotech is generally taken out of context. It’s findings are not specific to GMOs and its conclusion states: “Thus, it is highly unlikely that the gene transfer events seen in this study would alter gastrointestinal function or pose a risk to human health.”
      I have not read a paper showing that DNA from our food has integrated with our own DNA or with the DNA in the bacteria of our guts (if such a paper exists, let me know). There are multiple papers demonstrating that the DNA from our food can be detected in our plasma and organs.
      Regarding your point about transfer into the gut, it could be possible, and I imagine that the microbiome sequencing projects that are underway will help determine if DNA from our food transfers to our gut bacteria. But to say that it has happened is purely speculative and hypothetical. Keep in mind that in order for the bacteria to proliferate and “take over” our microbiomes, the adopted gene would have to confer some sort of selective advantage, and I have a hard time seeing how the genes that are currently used in GMOs would do that.
      In the end, if over the course of human evolution, the bacteria in our gut haven’t taken up DNA from nuts or other foods we’ve been eating for thousands of years, why would it start happening now for these specific crops?
      I’ve written about this a bit more here:

  6. I think the partisan nature of this site becomes apparent through posts like this one. 10 studies are “debunked” – but there’s no discussion of the dearth of actual safety feeding trials on bt foods that humans are now expected to eat as diet staples (instead of as ingredients bereft of possible problematic proteins). Foods like bt sweet corn in the US and bt eggplant in Bangledesh. You can count the studies done on one hand.

    Instead, we’re told that we’ve eaten billions of GMO meals already and no one’s been harmed. Aside from the truly unscientific nature of that assertion, it’s simply not true. The consumption of bt toxins many thousands of times what we’ve been exposed to previously hasn’t been investigated. We’re simply relying on the belief that since humans don’t have receptors for these proteins, they can’t hurt us. But feeding trials indicate that these proteins, as they exist in the GM food they’re engineered into, cause a number of problems like liver and kidney lesions, and immunogenic responses.

    This is nothing more than advocacy for the biotech industry. Here’s how you do it: find bad research and debunk it. Talk up the rhetoric: GMO is more precise, improves yield, is environmentally friendly, can help feed the world, etc. – when what we’re mostly talking about is pesticide-tolerant or insect resistant patented commodity crops.

    meanwhile, ignore valid studies that disagree with your claims and also ignore that there aren’t many studies at all on the most concerning aspects of this technology. Oh, and paint all those who raise concerns as anti-science and anti-GMO – even though those people may support well-reasoned applications of GMO.

      • Not sure what you want to discuss. Here are a few studies. Every bt plant is unique.


        I’d be most interested in your take on the safety of bt brinjal in Bangledesh – perhaps the first instance of a bt plant being eaten as a diet staple by humans.

        I’ve got the links to the studies that were done in India. If you want to discuss them let me know, since I don’t have them handy. Also, there are a couple of reviews on those studies.

        If you’re looking to discuss studies on the safety of specific bt food crops, then you must have some research in mind that you’re basing your thoughts on the issue on? I’d be happy to discuss those with you as well.

          • Dr. Heinemann is a highly knowledgeable scientist, and is particularly adept at cataloging an amazingly large number of hypothetical scenarios—almost entirely negative ones. Science needs “devil’s advocates” like him. What he fails to do is to discuss the likelihood of these scenarios, or put these hypothetical risks in the context of all the other hypothetical—and known—risks that we face.

            I’d be glad to discuss this in more depth, but threads on GLP are not the ideal medium.

          • You are reading the paper very differently from me. I see him attempting to make calculations that no one else has bothered to consider. These are the questions that NEED to be considered when changing the genetics of vast amounts of biomass and doing it in the way we’ve done with bt.

            Are you familiar with the attempt to engineer a bacteria to break down field stubble on Oregon turf farms? Scientists crossed Xanthomonas with Kebsiella planticola. It was only by accident that the bacteria were prevented from being released. The EPA had already approved them for field tests.

            Why was this a lucky accident? Because it turned out the GE bacteria could have destroyed many species of plants by displacing the
            Kebsiella planticola normally growing around their roots and utilizing
            their secretions to make alcohol (which was the purpose of engineering
            them, but not their target)

            You can find more on that incident online if you wish. GE is a powerful technology. We can’t let the profit motive overwhelm our scientists’ recommendations of caution.

        • Brinjal (eggplant) is an important food crop in India, but is attacked by a variety of insects. One study found an average of 15 pesticide applications per season (!), resulting in 13% of samples having above the maximum recommended level of contamination. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/58472/2/art-5.pdf

          Substitution with a Bt transgenic would likely improve yields, reduce cost of pesticides, and reduce pesticide exposure both to the farmer and consumer.

          I consider the vocal objections by certain anti-GMO activists to Bt Brinjal to be unethical. In the West, many people make a big deal about “choice” not to consume GM-desrived foods: to me, a much more important “choice” is to give Indian farmers the right to choose the kind of pesticide technology they prefer.

          • So, you’re not interested in critically assessing whether or not the tests done on the engineered brinjal showed that the food was safe for human consumption, but are more interested in asserting that bt brinjal will: improve yields and reduce pesticide residue on brinjal.

            First of all, there’s no shortage of brinjal in India, and in fact it’s often fed to animals because of its overabundance. Second, IPM can and is being used throughout India to reduce the use of chemical pesticides.
            You don’t have any evidence that using bt brinjal would reduce cost of production or increase yield – only theory. Other bt crops have fallen prey to pests not affected by the bt toxins. It happened with sucking pests in bt cotton in India. Also, without as much as 50% of every planting being put in as non-bt, resistance to the bt toxins is inevitable. In both cases, pesticide use goes back up to where it was. This happened rather quickly in India with bt cotton. Using the indigenous genetics of brinjal in India and Bangledesh to engineer seeds with patented genes is just another way for Monsanto (Mahyco in Bangledesh) to take over a commodity in those countries and sell it back to the people at a profit.

            Unethical? Is it really unethical to question whether or not bt brinjal, which is a diet staple in India and Bangledesh, is safe for human consumption?

  7. Nice to debunk these studies, but I would be much more interested in really credible research, lasting at least 2 years using ‘normal’ farm animals and being fed 100% (perhaps some additives in the form of vitamins and/or calcium) GMO feed stock as it is produced in the field and as it would normally be sprayed (frequency and timings) with Glyphosate. Compare that with a control group fed non-GMO feed stock.

    The studies that I have seen don’t go further than about 30% GMO content. If it is so safe, why not do research on 100% to get the best chance of catching problems along the way.

      • Thanks for the link. Can only get the abstract but that gives a few things away. MON810 does not work together with Glyphosate. Also, previous studies (probably while this research was being carried out) found liver, kidney and heart damage in rats. Those results were immediately discredited and the EFSA stated that it was within ‘acceptable range’. (Most people suspect that the EFSA is infiltrated and controlled by Monsanto). The study in the link could have so easily added a few boxes to the research by establishing whether the cows of both groups were equally healthy for those and perhaps other organs. They had done the ‘time’, why not get all possible results? Is there something to hide? That is what I ask as non-science person. If you do a two-year plus study, you want to get as much benefit out of it as possible, including the impact on the health of the cows. Two years is hardly enough for cancer to fully develop, but the initial signs, and/or changes to tissue can be observed. Because that is not done, the whole study becomes of virtually no value. Yeah, for the farmers the results of milk production are similar. But the ultimate goal is feeding the same ‘stuff’ to people. For that, you need health studies on the effects of GMO corn. If scientists cannot be independent in what they are publishing, science is useless.

        One of the researchers was apparently working at the University of Munich at the time.

        When Mon810 was banned in Germany,(see: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/monsanto-uprooted-germany-bans-cultivation-of-gm-corn-a-618913.html) the president of the Technical University had this to say:

        *_However, supporters of genetic engineering argue that a ban could prompt research companies and institutes to pull up stakes and leave Germany. Wolfgang Herrmann, president of Munich’s Technical University, has said that a prohibition risks precipitating “an exodus of researchers.”_*

        So much for independent research.

        • Why would you interpret that statement as meaning that the researchers were not independent? A ban on the commercialization of products in their field of research makes their research more difficult. Stem cell researchers made similar statements during the Bush administration. Doesn’t make their research less independent.

          As for other long term studies, please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155268
          You can also search the new database in Genera, which will allow you to search based on source of funding: http://genera.biofortified.org/

  8. Lots of flaws in your “take down” as some have so eloquently described it. Take number 7, for insance. No where in the article you are referring to does it state GMOs are associated with Autism, Parkinson’s or Alzheimers. They merely noted a correlation, and stated there is not enough solid evidence either way to make a certain claim, but it is a possiblity. Like most people, you are arguing ideology under the guise of being rational. Sad.

    • Do me a favour. Go to the very first link in the article. The one that is hyperlinked to collective-evolution.com
      Scroll down to item #7. You’ll see that I copied, verbatim, the title of the bullet point, which was the entire point of my article, which seems to have escaped you.

      • Thanks for making me do some due diligence. You are right; I conflated item #7 with the overall conclusion of the article, which was “So, if anybody ever tells you that GMOs are completely safe for
        consumption, it’s not true. We just don’t know enough about them to make
        such a definitive statement. A lot of evidence actually points to the
        Also, I found out the author from Discover is not a scientist; he is simply an editor and freelance journalist. He quotes questionable sources, such as Kevin Folta (Google him). By the way, it wasn’t the author of the Discover article who said it was a Glen Beck drawing, it was somebody on Twitter. Also, the authors of the study that you put down as being in a pay-to-publish journal are 1) Consultant Anthony Samsel who has worked for the EPA as a consultant Here’s a brief bio on him:

        Samsel was a consultant at the world-renowned ‘think tank’, Arthur D.
        Little, Inc. in Cambridge, MA. He is now retired and engaged in
        nationwide community investigations of industrial polluters. He has
        worked on many environmental projects for the EPA, US Coast Guard, and
        Army Corps of Engineers and is the author of “Guide to Water Cleanup
        Materials and Methods.”​

        was the principle environmental and public health investigator, who
        successfully linked the Georgia Pacific Corporation to the chemical
        phenol and contamination of public drinking water wells. 2) Stephanie Seneff, an professor from MIT specializing in Artificial Intelligence expert who has recently turned her attentions to Biology.

        Of course, their article/paper has been criticized by some but it has over 248 references. Did you check and follow up on all those? They also have numerous other studies/overviews for glyphosphate, many of them in peer-reviewed journals. In the end, the truth is that you are as lazy and as much an ideologue as you accuse others of being. Just own it and your sloppy “science”. I suggest you take some time and actually read the papers they have published. You might actually learn something. Obviously being fresh out of graduate school isn’t cutting it.

        • Joe, You seem to be impressed by large numbers of references. Samsell and Seneff have published a couple of papers like this. A technical term for this is “Gish Gallop”.

          Yes, I have read both these papers more than once and waded through dozens of the “references”. Despite the ostensibly vast literature search, the authors seem to be uncannily unaware of the literature that would contradict their notions. I am confident that 99.99% of people hearing about the wild claims in these papers will not do the necessary fact-checking. These papers are political tools dressed up as science.

          • Thanks, but your comment is basically a word salad with no substance. You offer no real counter evidence or research; only a generalized statement. This is a common tactic in debates but amounts to nothing. You could easily use the strawman “impressed by large numbers of references” to any other research. Those mentioned have done due diligence in their research and have a track record of achieving tangible results. You’re just some doofus on the internet.

          • @Joe. Some dressing for the “word salad”: http://ultimateglutenfree.com/2014/02/does-glyphosate-cause-celiac-disease-actually-no/

            Another simple example is the claim that glyphosate is to toxic to humans because it chelates metals. Yet normal dietary zinc is roughly 1000-fold higher than the typical exposure to glyphosate! (NB simple arithmetic + high-school chemistry required). Homework assignment: do the calculation for dietary calcium.

            In a recent interview about the dangers of glyphosate and GMOs, Dr. Seneff stated: “You wonder, if you were smoking organic tobacco, it might not be so bad for you, you know?” ( http://rs1234.freeconferencecall.com:80/fcc/cgi-bin/play.mp3/7124320460-1070367-15.mp3 ). While it would be amusing to do a more thorough debunking of the Samsell/Seneff claims, it would be outside the scope of this thread.

          • I only had time to peruse your article, but all I can really say is that it boils down to the typical “he said/she said.” You make some points about, again, ideology, as well as potential un-scientific approaches. As you mentioned, going in-depth is beyond the scope of this comments section. However, a couple of simple rebuttals to your article. 1) From the University of Maryland’s site, considered by most to be on the leading edge of modern research, “The Center for Celiac Research estimates that approximately six percent of the U.S. population, or 18 million people, suffers from gluten sensitivity.” This is from 2011. Either way, it’s closer to what Seneff suggests and/or represents quite a jump from the .6 percent figure you put out there 2) Trends and Associations Don’t Imply Cause and Effect. This is the equivalent of saying “Correlation doesn’t equal causation,” which is incredibly sloppy for any scientist to say and, by itself, should throw a HUGE shadow of doubt on any sense of credibility. A much more accurate way to say this would be “trends and associations don’t NECESSARILY imply cause and effect.” The fact is, in many instances, it does imply cause and effect. Putting that silly chart showing organic food intake increasing autism rates is childish at best. The opposite extreme would be saying if I punched you in the face and you complained that it hurt I could easily blame the wind saying, “correlation doesn’t equal causation.” Either side of the issue/debate/evidence you fall on, apparently having a PhD doesn’t equal the ability to not be influenced by ideology.

          • I’m sorry that you are confused—or is it that you would rather not actually read the piece, in case it might make sense? Either way, feel free to go to the blog and leave a question, and I’d be glad to help explain the points.

            GLP is devoted to scientific literacy. Literacy requires work (reading, listening, asking questions, thinking). A little tip, Joe: when you don’t know something, ask questions first. It’s ironical that you seem to be using exactly the crude approach that Samsell/Senneff take in their two papers: doing a superficial information search about an area of science that you are obviously unfamiliar with, and then drawing a false conclusion.

            BTW As much as it would give me pleasure, this is not the place to debunk the flaws of the University of Maryland Medical Center website, which clearly contradicts published science. Don’t forget, University websites and press releases are marketing tools—not subject to scientific peer-review. Let’s hope they do a little more fact-checking when treating patients. I will ask them to correct the error, which has obviously been on their site since 2011.

          • Ha ha. I’m not confused at all. I just recognize a poorly written article, full of bias, when I see it.. And I agree, your website is pure propaganda, with the usual cherry-picking and childish reasoning. You didn’t directly address any of my criticisms in your thinking, by the way, another great debate tactic. I understand at your age it can be hard to admit you’re not as smart as you thought you were, but you should at least make an attempt to be honest with yourself. By the way, here’s an article from Medscape showing the same figures that I mentioned: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757916_5 and goes further to by saying it isn’t very well understood anyway. The National Foundation for Celiac awareness also quotes the same statistic http://www.celiaccentral.org/non-celiac-gluten-sensitivity/, as does Fasano from the U of M. Guess you’re in the minority in your estimate, but ultimately it may not matter as FODMAPS may be to blame. Keep up the good fight though, Pete, praying at your imaginary alter of the pristine peer-reviewed study and your imagined brilliance.

          • By the way, just to be clear about this, your article states, from the
            Samsel and Seneff paper, “Celiac disease, and, more generally, gluten
            intolerance, is a growing problem worldwide, but especially in North
            America and Europe, where an estimated 5% of the population now suffers
            from it.” It’s obvious that they are including the statistics of both
            celiac and gluten sensitivity, yet you chose to state they were
            referring only to celiac disease. If it were only celiac, your
            statistical quote would be correct, but, again, it’s obviously not.
            Incredibly disingenuous and manipulative on your part. Add that to the
            failed logic of the graph about correlation and you have a very poorly
            written article. Feel free to correct your article. I did it for free
            this time, but next time you’ll have to pay.

          • Joe, if you cannot even quote my article accurately, then “What we have here is a failure to communicate” (Cool Hand Luke). Your courageous defense of Samsell/Seneff is impressive. Are you sincerely interested in discussing the potential role of GMOs or glyphosate in gluten-related disorders? If so, please go to my blog and comment—I would be delighted to pursue the discussion, and will gladly eat my words if I’m mistaken. Or are you merely interested in distracting the thread away from Dr. Katiraee’s GLP article?

            What I find interesting in Layla’s point #3 is that Dr. Seneff has recently hitched up with some of the popular fringe—a non-science political activist, a chiropractor, an altmed activist (“pineapple enzyme cures cancer”), and a nutrition graduate from Bastyr University. In a recent interview, Dr. Seneff bemoaned the fact that she had difficulty getting her ideas published in the mainstream scientific journals. I have no doubt that she will get much more publicity from joining Jeffrey Smith and associates, than by trying to break into mainstream biological science.

          • Sorry, but I cut and paste from your article directly, so there was no misquote. There really isn’t any use talking about this as you continually use strawmans and deflect any direct discussion.

          • I’m not interested in defending anyone; I’m simply trying to look at things methodically and logically. Here’s what your statement says in item #1 in reference to gluten sensitivity after the Samsell/Seneff article quoted the 5% statistics : “This is not true. While the prevalence of celiac disease has increased, the 2009/2010 estimate of prevalence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity in the general U.S. population U.S. is about 0.6% (Ref. 2).” Your reference (Ref. 2) then points to a study that is solely about celiac disease stating the 0.6% statistics. You failed to correct your own blog, as this was not the same as it was before! Either way, you failed. If you can’t do something simple like that, how can you even begin to have a rational discussion on GMOs or glycophosphate?

          • “GLP is devoted to scientific literacy.”

            Science teachers are devoted to scientific literacy. This site doesn’t teach science, it tells us that we should like GMOs and pesticides. Show me one post on this site that actually teaches science.

  9. As a scientist with a Ph.D. in plant genetics and more than twenty years of experience in academic research in the field, I find this discussion deeply depressing. Frankly, most of the people that argue against GMOs are scientifically illiterate. Yes, they can ape a real discussion of the science, but they aren’t really competent to actually have one. And the vast majority of actual academic scientists know it. Because if you’ve spend years studying the field, it bloody obvious. But for the casual reader, they seem to know about what they are taking about when they peddle trash science as real. I think much of the leadership of the anti-gmo movement are a deeply cynical group of lying scum bags. Natural News is laughably idiotic, and yet it is regularly referenced by activists who don’t have the training to understand that. The Organic Consumers Organization is, ironically, a front group for Big Organic companies. And Jeffery Smith is a classic American huckster. If he wasn’t shilling for the anti-GMO schtick he would be doing something else. Faith healing, essential oils, flying yoga. Whatever. And Dr. Bronner’s. Have you actually read the words on their bottles of soap? It used to be kind of cute. Now, not so much. At any rate, not that it matters to them, but the net effect has been that the Environment movement has deeply alienated tens of thousands of actual scientists, including me. We are a tiny minority of the population. Most of us are pretty apolitical, but if we are political, we are generally pretty liberal, and deeply sympathetic to the Environmentalist perspective. But the shear volume of Stupid on this issue, like the vaccination issue, is deafening. I don’t expect the activists to hear a word I’m saying. Shill, blah, blah, blah. And I’m anonymous, so everything I’m saying could be a lie. But, for the rest of you, who are undecided, look carefully at who is talking to you. Ignore anonymous comments (even mine). There are many, very brave, academic scientists, who use their real names, who are deeply offended by the perversion of good science being promulgated by ideologues, opportunists, and greedy business interests. Why do you suppose that is?

    • Tell you what Doc, You provide any proof that no one has died from them and I’ll back off. Till then, you have a huge mountain of data to read. Oh, you don’t read data, because you’re not a doctor. Your a no one from nowhere with no experience? Really? I thought you were a doctor? No, You just say you are? I’m shocked. A PHD that can’t come up with a name, a profile. No citations off any papers. No stance or knowledge, but tells everyone how safe GMO’s are? I’m stunned. LOL

      • I am just reading and laughing….I totally agree with the above PHD. Ppl like you disgust me. I have been scrolling down reading what you have wrote and you keep mentioning all these generic studies you’ve read but you have yet to put one forth on this comment page. And when you do its likely to come from one of the ridiculous aforementioned resources mentioned by the above scientist who you have obviously just “disproved”.

        • I have been reading through these comments to see if anyone of these arguments can help me with a paper i have to write on GMOs.But none of these really helped me out .Most of them seemed to be childish in ways or completely bias. Personally i try to eat organically because no one is sure of the out come on the human body when gmos are consumed and like others i do not want to be a part of this experiment. They have not been tested long enough . Even if some guy with a PHD says its okay . Him and other educated people are just human , not god , not some mythical person that can foresee the fate of these new ” foods”. Can someone actually show me where they are getting all this information from ? instead of just insisting that you are right ?

          • you’re all jealous you’re too stupid to get your PHDs. The ave American’s IQ is 100. Barely capable of analytical thought. HAHA. I trust the PHD’s. They’re not Gods, but more trustworthy than you grammatically incorrect morons.

          • Ever heard of Einstein? Newton? What about Tesla? Tesla was the perfect student.. never missed a lecture but had ideas that didnt fit with what scientists at the time accepted;. resulting in him losing his place in education and becoming arguably the greatest scientist of all time. Point being.. a phd does not make you right or more able.

          • Many, many plants synthesize substances toxic to insects, and others synthesize substances to make themselves unpalatable to insects. Some of those substances synthesized to make plants unpalatable to insects are toxic to human beings.

          • and yet they all work withing the original 147 left hand proteins found in life on earth. some GMOs contain the 148th such protein… and you feel there has been enough testing done to ensure their safety?

          • No, they are not always considered poisonous, because whether or not they are poisonous depends on dose. There are a large number of potentially harmful plant-derived substances in the everyday diet, but they don’t cause problems as long as you eat a balanced diet and don’t eat too much of the harmful substances. If you refused to eat every plant that has substances in it that could kill you at a high dose, you probably wouldn’t have any plants to eat at all.

          • unfortunately Ros, I do understand toxicology enough to recognize that dosage is important. Also important is how those toxins are eliminated from the body. Many such are actually retained and build up over time. One fine example of such is mercury, found in almost every fish on the planet. While eating some fish is healthy, too much can cause mercury poisoning. How do the toxins in GMO crops pass through the human system? NO ONE KNOWS because it hasn’t been studied.

          • What toxins in GMO crops, rude person?

            Relatively few poisons are bioaccumulative and regulatory agencies take a very, very dim view of those that are.

          • The ones that they haven’t bothered to test for, arrogant narcissist. ones similar to DDT and dioxin, which were declared ‘safe’ when introduced but were proven later, not to be. Ones that may not be directly fatal, or even directly harmful to humans, but change the flora and fauna within our digestive tracts.

            And once again you sidestep the real issue.

            Franken-food needs to be studied thoroughly BEFORE we discover that “OOPS, we were wrong again” happens. Prevention rather than grasping later for a cure.

            If this concept is too tough for you to grasp, perhaps an easier concept…. it is very difficult to unbreak an egg.

          • This is an interesting point. If the FDA and other agencies accept toxins in products because they are at a level that is acceptable, does the FDA also look into ALL the different toxins we are exposed to in a single day? If we are exposed to limited levels of toxins in just about everything we come into contact with, do these toxins accumulate and help one another negatively affect our bodies or is it all ok? I ask because my four sets of grandparents and most great-grandparents died between 85-98 years of age. However, my family has now lost 6 women in 15 years under the age of 60. I have a hyperthyroid and am the first in my family to have this condition. I used to not worry about what I ate or wore (make-up, perfumes etc) but now am wondering where is all the illness coming from?

          • Myr Silverleaf, there are not only 147 proteins on earth. There are millions. Where did you get the idea that there are only 147?

          • I did not say that there were only 147 proteins on earth. in facts in earlier posts I commented that there are vast numbers of them; however all life on planet Earth is comprised of a very specific 147 left-hand proteins. At least it was until the advent of GMO work, when a protein never before seen in any living organism on the planet, was spliced into our food supply.

          • “all life on planet Earth is comprised of a very specific 147 left-hand proteins”
            This is complete and utter rubbish. There are at least 2 million different proteins in the human body alone. Not counting our microbial flora.

          • I don’t want or need the respect of someone as ignorant and stupid as you, and I can’t be impertinent to someone who does not outrank me.

          • Bees pollinate the 660+ flowering plants that produce pyrrolizidine alkaloids that are extremely toxic to your liver, some of which have caused massive outbreaks of liver disease in human beings. At least some pyrrolizidine alkaloids are carcinogenic and it is likely that most are. Pyrrolizidine alkaloids are very, very commonly found in honey consumed by human beings.
            As another example, Google ‘grayanotoxin honey’
            What was your point about bees again?

          • Except, they do, you idiot. All the time. Milkweed is poisonous to most insects and animals, the exception to that being the Monarch butterfly in its’ larval stage.

    • Regardless of what current studies do or do not show, one thing is true… There is a fast amount of information about biology/genetics/human health that we still do not know.

      Gene therapy works in theory, but not in practice… does anyone truly understand why? No.
      Often in laboratory studies, introducing new genes into cells (human or otherwise) has off target or unexplainable results. Simply put, there is no way to know with certainty that there are no effects from consume GMO products, could they be effects that we currently do no have the knowledge base to monitor? Could there be no effects? Could the effects be long-term or as a result of cumulative exposure?

      Those answers can’t be answered now. But we can look at the history of laboratory made products and human health… for example pharmaceuticals. There is a desired effect, however there are often unforeseen off target effects. Many times the product is deemed safe.


      …and only after the product is released to the public for some time do the effects become evident and what was thought to be safe indeed isn’t. The patients who died, went blind, or suffered a number of “side effects” are the test subjects.

      Anything new, man-made for human consumption is an experiment. Only time will truly tell the impact. Maybe they prove harmless, but based on our history, I choose not to be a test subject.


      Biochemical Researcher

      Ps. As a scientist, I can say that in general, scientists are ignorant of their own ignorance. We have a history of thinking what we “know” to be true is “gospel” only to have much of current knowledge disproved by future generations.

      • Crissy Dobson. This is someone who I can admire. Knowledgeable, Intelligent, yet humble. One who knows man is far from perfect and even science doesn’t have all the answers.

      • I like how you start your argument with “regardless of what current studies do or do not show.” Also, it’s almost certain that most of the food you eat contains some GMO ingredients, so you are a “test subject”

          • No, she used it right. She’s saying that the evidence can be questioned and there isn’t a definitive answer so put it aside. What she states after the comma is what she considers the unquestionable fact.

          • But there is no evidence to prove GMOs are unhealthy. Therefore, we can’t simply say “GMOs are dangerous.” like so many anti-gmos people do.

          • Agreed, there are however numerous studies that state that GMO’s may not be safe, which is enough for me to say, OK stop, do further testing and prove it one way or the other. IT is not acceptable to say they may be safe, and leave it because the consequences will most likely not appear until after I am dead. One thing that has been shown though, is that the age old statement “life will find a way” holds true, and there are numerous reports that show that in some countries, GMO seed have “invaded” the natural crops to the point where up to 87% of all current crops whether originally GMO or not, now consist of GMO stock. I also worry that Obama has appointed the ex vice president of Monsanto at head of the FDA, it raises many questions the biggest being how long before the so called “terminator gene” in approved for distibution

          • “in some countries, GMO seed have “invaded” the natural crops to the point where up to 87% of all current crops whether originally GMO or not, now consist of GMO stock”

            Been reading natural science propaganda, it would seem.

          • For the record I am Pro-GMO. But I am against Pesticide Resistant GMOs. Yes there is definitely evidence. Monsanto actually sued a farmer in Canada whose stocks were pollinated by a neighboring GMO farm.

            But this happens with all fruits and vegetables. So even if Glycophosphate Resistant Genes got into other crops this would have little impact. The biggest problem is the integrity of the mutation in the GMO. It could trans-locate within the plant genome causing another mutation that we didn’t want. This is simple to test for though. You just breed the plant through a couple generations to make sure the mutation ‘sticks’. And furthermore with CRISPR this won’t even be a problem anymore.

          • So, when Monsanto screws up an organic farmers lively-hood, that’s “tough shit” for the organic farmer? Wow, what a sense of justice!

            And who says I am against all GMOs? Actually I am working on making a different type of crap – – excuse me, type of crop – – – – – NTESCs.
            Embryonic-type stem cells – – via NT (nuclear Transfer) – – stem cells with your DNA, full telomere length – – – as Oregon U. just did.
            For more, at http://www.iaam.ca click on STEM CELL LAB.

            Sorry about the mess at the site; we are rearranging and up-dating, using a different format.

          • Whoa. What a way to put words into my mouth. What I am saying is that 80% of sources given to me concerning Anti-GMOs studies is directly related to Pesticide Resistant Crops. It seems like a no brainer that being able to spray more pesticides especially glycophosphate based pesticides which have anti-biotic properties might give a rat cancer and thus humans perhaps as well. You mentioned Seralini whose work seems completely focused on this particular type of GMO. What is causing the negative effects in these studies? Pesticides or GMOs?

          • Monsanto is using GMO pesticide resistance crops to wipe out small farmers and organic farmers (which it just considers as another form of “pest”) as well as insect pests.

            The crops in farms close to GMO fields gets pollitated by the GMO crops (bees, wind, birds, other insects etc can spread in for tens of miles or even more) THen Monstanto SUES THE VICITIM of its wanton release of GMO pollen into the environment for (supposedly) “stealing Monsanto’s intellectual property”)!

            This is planned and deliberate “with full malice aforethought” just yet another of many diabolical manipulations and sabotage that large argibusiness has and is using to destroy small farms, most especiallyb ones experimenting with alternative to agribusiness’s environmentally devastating approaches.

          • You clearly are in WAY over your head on the science.

            Transposons (Barbara McClintock’s “jumping genes”) move genetic insertions around the genome (but some have been modified to prevent that). CRISPRs insertions don’t move around like that but they do have many CURRENTLY UNRESOLVED problems, most especially that a portion of their insertions are RANDOM (which is an absolute bar to their use in therapeutics, BTW) But the big problems are unrelated to the tool. (BTW, zinc fingers are far superior to CRISPRs because they have a much lower rate of off target hits but more important, the off target hits they do have are in sequence highly similar to the target so easy to test for (you can’t do that with CRISPRs because some of their OTHS are RANDOM)

            THE BIG problem is totally separate from whatever genetic modification tool that is used (including even zinc fingers that are the only GM tool that leaves no traces other than the actual insertion) THe genes inserted can (and usually do) come from a totally unrelated species (because if the species was related you could use just conventional UNCONTROVERSIAL plant breeding/selection). And when those genes escape into the environment into species related to the crop into which they were inserted BUT TOTALLY UNRELATED to the species the gene came from) there is potential for severe ecological disruptions. AND ONCE OUT IN THE ENVIRONMENT THERE IS NO WAY TO GET THE GENES BACK. Just ask an Australian about Cane Toads or rabbits. Or a Kiwi about gorse.

          • ” but they do have many CURRENTLY UNRESOLVED problems, most especially that a portion of their insertions are RANDOM (which is an absolute bar to their use in therapeutics, BTW) ”

            This is only a problem when it concerns Eukaryotic cells. We can use selective markers in plasmids to ensure the correct mutation has transferred and has been used in hundreds if not thousands of studies at this point.

            “And when those genes escape into the environment into species related to the crop into which they were inserted BUT TOTALLY UNRELATED to the species the gene came from) there is potential for severe ecological disruptions. AND ONCE OUT IN THE ENVIRONMENT THERE IS NO WAY TO GET THE GENES BACK. Just ask an Australian about Cane Toads or rabbits. Or a Kiwi about gorse.”

            Rabbits had a non-GMO virus introduced to them. The Cane Toad project was scrapped. Do you have any studies that show Bt genes spreading though natural populations or any evidence at all to support your claims? I am willing to change my mind concerning this subject but so far every Anti-GMO comment has included insults and disingenuous claims. If not outright misrepresentation of the data on studies.

          • If you’d read the case against Percy Schmeiser in Canada, you’d realize that the court ruled that Percy stole patented seeds. All farmers sign agreements with GE seed companies not to do that. And that is not uncommon with patented seeds, which have been in use over 85 years.
            There are articles on the lawsuit itself. Here is the summary on Wiki.

          • Actually that is not what the Wiki article says at all.

            “the trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s 1998 crop.”

            There was no evidence that he stole them. Just that he couldn’t prove that his field (in 1998) came about by contamination. Considering the team of lawyers Monsanto has I would say they convinced the judge that contamination couldn’t happen.

            “Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.” (1997)

            “The evidence showed that the level of Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser’s 1998 fields was 95-98% (See paragraph 53 of the trial ruling[4]). Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means. On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known “or ought to have known” that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998.”

            His crop was contaminated. He saved those seeds separately and planted them. So if your crops get contaminated by a GMO you have to destroy them and their seeds.

            “All farmers sign agreements with GE seed companies not to do that.”

            No that is false.

            “When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us.”


            The farmer never signed any agreement with Monsanto and thus doesn’t have to abide by them. Furthermore the Court ruling was 5v4 not exactly a cut and dry case.

            “Led by Madam Justice Louise Arbour, the dissenting faction said a reasonable observer would conclude that “gene claims and the plant-cell claims should not be construed to grant exclusive rights over the plant and all of its offspring.

            “Mr. Schmeiser was entitled to conclude that since plants cannot be patented, they fell outside the scope of patent protection,” they said. “Accordingly, the cultivation of plants containing the patented gene and cell does not constitute an infringement. The plants containing the patented gene can have no stand-by value. To conclude otherwise would, in effect, confer patent protection on the plant.”

            I agree with Justice Arbour’s dissent.

          • It happens in organic farming, too. It’s almost impossible to prevent cross-pollenization in an open field.

          • Michael, to use your own line of reasoning please provide me with a citation that shows there is not a really small alien tea pot orbiting the sun between Earth, and Mars. You can’t can you? So as the person making this claim the burden of proof is on me, and until I produce evidence to support my claim the world should treat my claim as made up bs.

          • Actually there are many reports questioning their safety, very few get peer review, its a question of money at the end of the day, those that do not accept the approved line simply lose it or do not get it in the first place.

          • If there is no evidence to back up an assertion, the intellectually honest thing to do is to stop making the assertion.

          • SOME testing? That’s done for decades by now. Also, it is impossible to prove the negative. Thus unless you provide evidence that GMOs are harmful, you shall treat them as harmless, if you are truly for truth. Or at least demand the same level of testing for conventional crops.

          • How many hundreds of years has man been modifying genes in the food system? I think that counts for testing.

          • Have you not taken the time to understand what GMO’s do to rats??? Please do and realize that there are no tests on humans so FDA(Bought and controlled by corporations) can easily say that there’s no proof. Take some time to taste the pudding;)

          • You lack the patience to investigate those studies on rats.
            Actually the article itself addressed the rat studies, so I presume you didn’t read it?
            And how would you know that the FDA is being bribed? Of course, an government institute with thousands of scientists are being given money without the government noticing. Of course.

          • Your questions are all irrelevant if you know how to assimilate all sources and the outcomes over years. Don’t be a disregarding idiot to make a personal, prideful point about things you only perceive to understand. Thanks for your patience.

          • Did you not read the article? The GMO-rat experiments were so flawed they were laughable. Seralini has a history of making stuff up for money, including his now infamous ‘aspartame’ studies (using the same cancer-prone rats).
            Bottom line, there is no causal link between GMOs and any health-related issues. Try looking at some university websites, or any of the hundreds of research papers done outside the US.

          • Actually, Myr, that tells me you have either not read the ‘rat studies’, or have no scientific understanding.

            The rat studies on GMO consumption were terminally flawed, and the data used to support the findings did not in fact show any such evidence. In fact, the authors selected specific groups (excluding data that showed results contrary to their desired outcomes) and even these subsets were ‘marginal’. If this study had been legitimate, and the findings repeatable, the WHO and UN would classify GMOs as a group 1 carcinogen… WHICH IT ISN’T, no matter how much you want to find something wrong with it.

            However, the cancer-causing effect of smoke (direct or ‘second hand’/indirect) is scientifically proven and repeatable.

            Sorry, but your opinion in nonsense.

          • that tells me you haven’t read the studies and methodology of the 2nd hand smoke studies, not repeatable, totally subjective and based on questionnaires that lead a participant down a merry rabbit hole of ‘pffffffft…”

            However, there have not been just one or two studies done on the carcinogenic effects of GMOs on test animals, including lab rats. in fact there are more than 17 such studies by independent labs that have all come to the same conclusions. GMO’s can cause cancer in lab animals; but then so can distilled water.

            You say my opinion is nonsense? okay, I can live with that as your opinion. In MY opinion? you’re a Monsanto shill who avoids the necessity of further testing of the effects of GMOs on people.

          • On what basis do you conclude I’m some type of ‘shill’, other than your outrage that someone has a science- and evidence-based opinion that is contradictory to your delusional dogma?

            There is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting second hand smoke. Just as there are over 400 independent, peer-reviewed and non-industry funded studies that show no such imaginary cancer-GMO link.

            Other than Seralini, please provide me with a couple of those 17 links, because I have yet to read one that actually does anything that express the opinion of the author that ‘there may be a link’ based on little more than small data sets or anecdotes from questionnaires. Please, I would genuinely be interested in reading them.

            My opinion is based on my current study of biology, talking with my university professors and a literal plethora of existing research from over 200+ universities, medical and scientific research facilities around the world.

            I’d be interested in seeing what your opinion is based on.

          • there are already sufficient links posted in this thread, do your own footwork here. Current studies and talking with professors tells me you are still a student. Which immediately suggests that the information you are gleaning is already outdated. Be interested in knowing the publishing dates on your textbooks.

            Please feel free to post any links to the research from those 200+ universities. I’d be interested in seeing their conclusions.

          • While I have several hundred to choose from, I’ve been through these links here as a good cross-section, all showing the following:
            – every one of these is University of Government research – NO industry involvement (I’ve not included any research undertaken by any AgriChem or Chem company)
            – every one has declared their funding sources (no AgriChem/Chem company funding)
            – I’ve also excluded any research where a contributing author was an employee of a AgriChem or Chem company. Which is to placate scientific ignorance, because many chemists, biologists and geneticist that work for these companies also hold research positions or collaborate on research with universities (It riles me that such ignorance of science exists that even an association somehow taints their scientific integrity in the eyes of idiots, yet they can overlook Seralini’s funding from CRIIGEN, a well-known anti-GMO activist organisation.)
            – a cross section of national, state and international (incl. European Food Safety Auth. study, that included researchers from at least 8 country’s leading universities)
            – I’ve only included research, no Meta studies, no articles, no opinion pieces, even as all those I have are peer reviewed articles from high impact scientific journals, no matter how esteemed the presenters.
            – I haven’t included various oblique studies that do not directly target GMOs, such as water quality studies that show no GMO product residues, or those that look at things like Bt toxin persistence in soils etc (despite this being a major claim by anti-GMOers)
            – I’ve only included those which you can access an abstract for (academic-only papers are not included as I cannot include links for you to access)

            Please, take the time to read some of them. It took me a few hours to filter these out, through my university database search. There are literally hundreds more, but if you want more, I think it’s time you took your blinkers off and ‘did your own research’ too.

            Lead Author – Hyperlink – Year – Institution: (G) Government; (U) University

            Devare, M – http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071707001095
            2006 (U) Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, New York

            Bartheau, Y
            2009 (G) Agence Française de Sécurité
            Sanitaire des Aliments, Laboratoire d’Etudes et de Recherches sur la Qualité des Aliments et les Procédés Agro-Alimentaires

            Onose, J
            2008 (G) Division of Pathology, National Institute of Health Sciences, Japan

            Kroghsbo, S
            2008 (U) Department of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark

            Ma, BL
            2011 (G) Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Researc Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ontario

            Wiedemann, S
            2007 (U) Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland

            Beckles, DM
            2012 (U) Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis

            Batista, R
            2007 (G) Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge, Portugal

            Adel-Patient, K
            2011 (G) Unité d’Immune-Allergie Alimentaire, France

            Buzoianu, SG
            2013 (G) Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Ireland

            Liu, P
            2012 (U) College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University

            Fermin, G
            2011 (G) USDA-ARS-Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hawaii

            Gruber, H
            2011 (G) Institute for Crop Science and Plant Breeding, Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture

            Gu, J
            2013 (U) Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Aquaculture Protein Centre, Norway

            Sissener, NH
            2011 (G) National Institute of Nutrition and Seafood Research, Norway

            Walsh, MC
            2012 (G) Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Ireland

            Misra, A
            2012 (G) CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, India

            Qin, F
            2012 (U) Department of Bioengineering, College of Food Science, South China Agricultural University, China

            Faust, M
            2007 (U) Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University

            Jacobs, CM
            2008 (U) Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois

            Sakamoto, Y
            2008 (G) Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology, Tokyo
            Metropolitan Institute of Public Health, Japan

            Trabalza-Marinucci, M
            2008 (U) Diagnostica e Clinica Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Perugia, & Università degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo”, Italy

            Daleprane, JB
            2009 (U) Dept. of Nutrition and Dietetics, College of Nutrition, Federal Fluminense University, Brazil

            Stein, HH
            2009 (U) Department of Animal and Range Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings

            Steinke, K
            2010 (U) Animal Nutrition Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Germany

            Yonemochi, C
            2010 (G) Japan Scientific Feeds Association

            Brouk, MJ
            2011 (U) Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan

            Randhawa, GJ
            2011 (G) National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Pusa Campus, India

            Fonesca, C
            2012 (G) National Institute of Health, Portugal

            Zhu, Y
            2013 (U) College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China
            Agricultural University, Beijing, China

            Bonadei, M
            2009 (U) Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, Università di Pavia, Italy

            Devos, Y
            2012 (G) European Food Safety Authority, Italy

            Cortet, J
            2007 (U) Institut National Polytechnique
            de Lorraine (France); Université Saint Jérôme (France); University of Aarhus
            (Denmark); Jožef Stefan Institute (Slovenia); Scottish Crop Research
            Institute (UK)

            Mulder, C
            2007 (G) National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, The Netherlands

            D’Angelo-Picard, C
            2011 (G) Institut des Sciences Du Vegetal, France

          • Hmm….Seralini wasn’t testing for cancer, he was testing for toxin build up. He used exactly the same number of test animals as Monsanto did for their 90 day trial. And the peer reviewed study wasn’t retracted until a Monsanto executive was made editor of the journal. Conversely, THREE major studies on the Pro side of GMOs have been retracted…

            Oh, just so you know, they did find toxins in the test subjects, transferred via the GMO feed to the rats. The tumor thing was a smoke screen by Monsanto, since everyone knows these rats are prone to them.

          • Ok, so you don’t know how science works. I get that.

            His ‘findings’, as published, “this was not designed as a carcinogenicity study” – yet the results were ‘harping’ about tumours. Coincidentally, if you are adept at reading data, and understand some simple statistical functions (standard deviation, etc), you’ll note that all tumour rates reported, as well as mortality rates, fall within the expected range for Sprague-Dawley rats. Scientifically, “nothing to report”.

            A basic, first year science student learns that you do not herald ‘findings’ that are not the purpose of your study as THE MAIN FINDING of your study. Yet this is exactly what his staged, media circus event was about.

            Secondly, his released data does NOT show what he claims, and as the study is not designed to look at carcinogenicity, he has not allowed for nor addressed any confounding factors. When a study is designed to look for cancers, all other possible causational confounders need to be isolated. It’s like saying, in isolation, that “soda causes lung cancer”, based purely on correlation during a study on soda consumption, while not identifying that 80% of the population are smokers. It’s simply that stupid.

            The first sign that this is a ‘setup’ study (designed to find what he wants it to find) is that the only referenced work (used as background to support the purpose of the study) he uses claiming any hint of possible harm ARE HIS OWN PREVIOUS WORK – and even in those papers, they are ASSUMPTIONS NOT BASED IN DATA.

            “Though the petitioners conclude in general that no major physiological changes
            is attributable to the consumption of the GMO in subchronic toxicity studies [2-5], significant disturbances have been found and may be
            interpreted differently [6,7]. A detailed
            analysis of the data in the subchronic toxicity studies [2-5] has revealed
            statistically significant alterations in kidney and liver function that may
            constitute signs of the early onset of chronic toxicity. This may be explained
            at least in part by pesticide residues in the GM feed [6,7]” – NOTE that references 6 and 7 are BOTH SERALINI PAPERS.

            Further, there have been similar, earlier studies done overseas for RoundUp ready Soy (Japan), over 104 weeks (similar term) but with a different species of rat – one less prone to cancer, and hence more appropriate for a toxicity study. Conducted by the Japanese government, with NO corporate funding from Monsanto or anyone else.


            They found none of the what Seralini claims. Interestingly, Seralini avoids quoting this study at all. Why? It’s a fairly major study, and you’d think it was pretty relevant in scientific terms. It’s also really easy to find on any scientific database, or even Google.

            Why didn’t he cite this study? Because it totally destroys the whole pretext he begins with to justify his nonsense.

          • None of the principle pro GMO papers have been retracted. WTF are you talking about? Of the hundreds of papers finding no harm from GMO, vs. the handful that claim to find harm (almost all of which are either unpublished, retracted or published in 100% predatory publications that admit they have no peer review)?

            Didn’t you just point out it was THREE. And didn’t I say – yes, if they were, they obviously had flaws. And if they weren’t republished in predatory, non peer reviewed ‘journals’, it would be because they actually had HONEST researchers who recognised their errors?

            Your argument is nonsensical.

          • Here is the link to prove my point:


            Obviously you have been misinformed. Funny thing is, that these three papers have snowballed into hundreds of pro GMO retractions. Pamela Ronald’s work, the basis of so many additional studies, are flawed; far more blatantly than any of Seralini’s work. The above article also names several other international researchers who have found opposite conclusions to Ronald’s papers.

          • Myr, while I detest the anti-GMO ad hominem approach to “science”, Mercola is neither a geneticist nor biologist. He’s an anti-GMO activist. He’s less credible that Dr Oz, and frankly, quoting his website does your credibility no favors.
            To address the article, however (another anti-GMO smear campaign), lets look at the facts.

            You should really not take ANYTHING that Mercola says on face value. He is a lair – and this is more evidence of that.

            1) Why were the articles retracted?

            If you would like to read the actual Independent Science News story – the studies were retracted AT THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHORS. They identified the errors. AND Ronald wasn’t the lead author of the papers, either. How about you at least ATTEMPT to get your facts right before attacking ethical scientists.

            2) So when an author recognises their own errors and voluntarily retracts their research, that is unethical? No, Seralini is the definition of unethical, who continues to deny his errors and then paid
            to have his discredited work in a non-peer reviewed journal – yet you
            accept his science as valid? No real science journal will touch his work – which even he admitted were funded by anti-GMO organistions. Oh come on, please!!

            3) Was it a GMO experiment?
            NO. It was research that would need to be replicated by GMO researchers in the future. Read the actual study. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029192

            4) The errors in ONE of the retracted papers stem from one of her TEAM’s work, were based on errors in a strain of
            “As a result of recent experiments in my laboratory, I wish to comment on
            the report of Han et al., 2011. Specifically, members of my laboratory
            have recently discovered critical errors in strain PXO99Δax21 used in
            the reported work. Because key parts of the work depend on the integrity
            of strain PXO99Δax21, we are now repeating all of the experiments using
            newly generated and validated strains.”
            So it was retracted because there was a second strain of rice, where the study specifically stated a single strain. This is known as ETHICS. You cannot report one type of finding when you’re looking for another. You know, like if your conducting a toxicity study they claim that GMO feed gave your rats cancer. ETHICAL SCIENCE.

            5) So you make the point that the retracted studies are the basis of other work, therefore the other work is tainted? Actually, your ignorance of the scientific process is once again evident. I hope you’re learning here.
            ONE of the studies was cited in 113 further papers. Not all were research papers – several were discussion papers. Not all were about GMO – about 40 were looking into other plants and processes and referred to the methods used, not the findings. Another 26 actually QUESTIONED the findings of the work. Not a single ONE of those that cited these works were actually ‘building’ upon it.

            No, Myr.

            This article, from 2013, based on research from 2011 and 2009, didn’t impact their reputation or the reputation of the lab. IF they had falsified findings, lied to the media, made false claims not supported by data – THAT would ruin their reputations. A voluntary retraction is ethical science.

            Thank you for posting this though, as I use this again when other idiots claim that somehow Seralini isn’t an unethical, grubby, paid shill for the anti-science movement.

          • so then why did it take more than a decade for this to happen? obviously the peer review system failed miserably. if it takes that long to fix paperwork…just imagine real testing

            btw papers…plural

          • I am impressed, Myr: you got me again! You make things up and people respond as though you are actually sincere in your claims. You have done an effective job hijacking a thread devoted to an important topic, and I can only conclude that you are much smarter and knowledgeable than you pretend to be.

          • Perhaps now you will stop being so condescending and dismissive. I don’t ‘make things up’ and I agree that GMOs (the horizontal kind) are a very important topic.

            More than a decade of studies, literally hundreds based on Ronald’s work, have since been retracted to be redone.

            Doesn’t it bother you that Seralini’s work was retracted on the basis that it was inconclusive, yet Ronald’s work, found to contain contamination and other errors, didn’t find any issues even though they used exactly the same numbers of test animals?

            Wouldn’t you expect ~something~ to show up in the original data before publication?

          • Myr. You are seriously quoting Mercola articles for a legitimate citation? You are on the wrong site if you think that has any credulity whatsoever. Take it over to Food Boob’s FB page or something. Mercola is a joke on this site.

          • obviously you did not read the article at the link I posted. Here’s a quote from it for you:

            “In this case, the first of Dr. Ronald’s retracted studies has been cited eight times.8 The second? 113 times.9 That sounds like an awfully large cleanup job in a field that’s already heavily criticized for its preponderance of “lousy science,” to use the words of award-winning geneticist Dr. David Suzuki.”

            And this does not include the fallout from the 2011 study retraction…. making things up? HARDLY

          • Oh… I read the article. And checked the citations. You can easily go to the two retracted articles and see the other pieces that have cited these articles. Not only do those citations not even add up to “hundreds” of citations, but none of them have been retracted. I guess that’s what you get when you rely on Mercola.

            I’d be interested in your explanation of how these two studies are “pro-gmo” anyway. This should be good!

          • first you may want to take a remedial math class…. second you may wish to remember how to count in base 10…. and then a basic English class with an emphasis on words and their definitions; because if you actually read the NEWS article on Mercola’s site concerning Ronald’s papers and the resulting retractions, you wouldn’t have posted your query in the first place.

          • Ironic that the person claiming “hundreds” is telling me about remedial math. I suspect if you actually fact-checked Mercola like I did you wouldn’t bother reading his junk anymore because you’ll find him not to be very reliable.

          • his science doesn’t have to be reliable to report news. I suggested remedial math, simply because there were THREE… not TWO… or Ronald’s papers retracted. the first from 2001. So why did the highly vaunted peer review system fail to catch the errors for 14 yrs?

          • Ok…three papers. What ever. The point is that it’s no where close to “hundreds” of retracted studies. Hell…the 3 studies you’re referring to aren’t even gmo studies!

          • hmm…so Pam Ronald isn’t the foremost researcher on the pro GMO front…. Didn’t do the 90 day rat trial for Monsanto, etc etc etc…and the first study wasn’t that rat trial for Monsanto….. get real

          • just they synopsis of each. I have real work to do as well. Statistical analysis.

            You still haven’t even gleaned my purpose here have you. I am not anti- GMO, just feel there needs to be more testing and proper labeling. Deliberate horizontal migration has not had enough time to know the truth.

          • Well, it’s been around an awful long time. Horizntal transfer & random mutations are part of what creates evolutionary advantages. Deliberate or not isn’t really important. One just needs to show how it COULD present a larger risk than the same deliberate hybridizing & artificial selection. So far, no ones even done that.

          • Heavens, no … Pam Ronald is a geneticist at UC Davis. She co-authored “Tomorrow’s Table” with her husband, organic farmer Raul Adamchak. She was not involved in any rat studies.
            She has been developing a rice that will withstand flooding without rotting, to use in places like Bangladesh where flooding for more than a day or two will ruin a whole crop.

          • Pam and I happen to see eye to eye on a number of points. The very term GMO is too broad and virtually meaningless as it is currently being used, for one.

            I found it interesting that she was talking about ‘Golden Rice’ in future tense, when it has already been an epic fail, so this puts a date on this interview for those that can do math.

            I also agree with her that genetic modification can have ‘unforeseen effects’… granted this can happen in nature as well, but we don’t need to add to the problem.

            I admire her stated goal… feed the world. but… this is a transportation issue, we already grow enough to feed the world, the problem is in getting it to those that need it.

          • Are you sure YOU’VE read the mercola article?

            “She may have to turn down her criticism a notch, considering the fact that not one but two of her own studies were found to contain sizeable scientific errors, rendering her findings null and void. Questions have also been raised about a third study published in 2011, according to the featured article.”

            Does that sound like 3 papers were retracted to you? What were you saying about remedial math?

          • Apparently, according to Mercola, a contaminated sample is a ‘sizeable scientific flaw’. Oh, but wait… that study has been re-done, completely, and guess what…

            Still found to be valid.

            Oops. Damn those legitimate scientists, hey Myr…

          • Ronald’s new paper:


            It’s a fascinating tale of the endless war between plants and their pests. The more we understand these interactions, the greater the chance that we can exploit these insights to develop crops with better pest resistance.

            Pest damage is a huge threat to worldwide food sustainability, and basic research such as Ronald’s could play a critical role in addressing this challenge.

          • Really? Did you have your internet turned ON? Because I’ve been through every one. Every Single ONE.
            They are all live links. Oh, or do you simply block pubmed now, because ‘science’?

            Let’s start with one:
            Can you read that? Particularly the last sentence.
            From the Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health. Tokyo, Japan – NO corporate affiliations.
            “These results indicate that long-term intake of GM soybeans at the level of 30% in diet has no apparent adverse effect in rats.”

            I’ve gone back and every single link is valid.

            Nice try.
            You’re starting to sound like Hans Kugler in your denial here.

          • interesting..that link worked. And yes I read it. Must have been difficult to find non GM soy since 98% of the crop is GM. Was my internet on? I was streaming a movie simultaneously, so s’pose it was working eh? 104 weeks…a record! now let’s have two additional species included in that study, and let’s up the feeding level to what a non breast fed human infant would be consuming.

          • Any ‘science news’ page that hypes conspiracy theories and ‘science’ that doesn’t include any critical review of the content, or even offers any idea about WHO is actually running or editing the pages for content, is suspect.

            Here’s a tip.
            If the pages you rely on for news don’t divulge the credentials of the reviewers, editors or writers, OR if the credentials are ‘shady’ (i.e. a computer scientist commenting on biology, or a Ph.D. in chiropractic or alternative medicine commenting on genetics), the story is probably also highly suspect. Stop suspending your scepticism to alleviate your cognitive dissonance.

            There are perhaps a handful of scientist, in every field, that are qualified to comment but who, for philosophical or religious reasons, choose to deny overwhelming scientific opinion. You see it in climate change. You see it with creationist ‘scientists’. And you see it in genetics.

            Unfortunately, “Independent [the key word
            Seralini is a good example of ‘science gone junk’. So are Latham and Wilson. They are considered, within the global genetics field (not just US, but Globally) as “denialists”. They are self-confessed activists (like Carmen)…Here’s a link to an article about the takedown of Latham and Wilson’s denialism papers by real scientists:
            The first line contains many more links to rebuttals of their stupidity. Latham and Wilson actually promote that “genes have little to no effect on who we are”… or any links to diseases? Really? The must have missed first year biology.

            So, NO, I do not think yet another activists page is somehow a ‘legitimate’ source, when all the actual science, GLOBALLY, disagrees with it. I trust my professors and lecturers (and the 60-strong genetics research department here at my university). I don’t believe in conspiracies based on acknowledge bad-science.

            Why do you continually think that the personal views, not supported by any repeatable science data, of what actually amounts to no more than a dozen outspoken, self confessed ‘activists’ (most of whom are not even trained in the field they are commenting on), is valid over the tens of thousands of geneticists, molecular biologists and food scientists who disagree with them? Do you honestly believe that a company the size of Starbucks (in terms of financial assets) can manage to pay off the entire scientific community, when the oil industry (roughly 500x more financially profitable) cannot buy 5% of climate scientists? Do you even realise how STUPID that sounds?

          • Doesnt Jonathan Latham, own independent science news and Bioscience Resources? Like that is the opposite of Independent.

          • so you tell me why a company with just over $1.6m in tangible assets would put $1.5m into anti labeling lobbying. And Pepsico with negative tangible assets puts in $4m+ and coca cola put in almost all of their net tangible assets into this anti labeling lobby.

            The reason is simple, their reported assets are bogus, perhaps legally, but still not a truthful representation of what they have. I worked for a not-for-profit corporation for a short time, the salaries were nearly double industry standard, and the ‘donations’ and ‘projects’ were very well funded. My point being is that income can be and often is diverted to off the books control. Take Donald Trump for example…. $8.7 billion, yet this man filed bankruptcy when? Tell me that the aforementioned companies can’t or don’t follow the same principles.

            Why the oil companies ‘can’t’ buy climatologists is also easy, there is still too much debate on the actual causality of climate change. The point being is that they don’t have to buy them.

            Here’s an interesting article you will probably just dismiss out of hand like usual, of politicians paid off by Monsanto: http://www.nationofchange.org/extensive-list-politicians-paid-monsanto-1369754283

          • So we can add financial literacy to the ever growing list of things “Myr Silverleaf doesn’t understand”. Excellent.

            So you’re ALSO a climate change denier. Not surprised. 97% scientific consensus there, too.

            Stop posting every one of your conspiracy theory links as some sort of evidence that I am, for some reason, supposed to accept over all of the scientific evidence. When the journalist [sic] uses “I’m speculating” to start a sentence, what does that tell you?

            Do you care that while Monsanto donated $382,000 (according to this article), Whole Foods donated $476,000 (according to donation records)?

            Have you tried those links again, because I see several others have now, and they all seem to work. Or are you using your science denial to pretend they aren’t there?

          • really don’t think you should go there terry, accounting was a minor of mine.

            Did I deny climate change? not at all, just the causation.

            and you better check your sources on lobbying expenditures. here’s a link: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/lobbying-and-advertising.html#.Vle7KPmrTWI

            your numbers are inaccurate to say the least.

            I have not gone back to your posted links, perhaps all the sources you posted were down for maintenance simultaneously? gives rise to questions does it not? Do you honestly believe I make stuff up? If you do you are more an idiot than I thought before.

            Do you not believe that I have a passion for this topic? that I present facts as I can find and descern them? Do you feel I like arguing with stick in the mid advocates of an untested PRODUCT foisted and hidden in the foods people eat every day?

            I do this for two reasons. Get some real replicatable, broad spectrum, conclusive, testing done; AND to label products properly to give the average consumer the right to decide for themselves what they want in their diet. If you say that this is not legitimate you LIE again.

          • So you already think everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an idiot. Good to know.

            Also good to know you also are in the AGW denial camp. Of course, what do climatologist know, right?

            Now, if you also believe chemtrails are real, you and crazy “Doctor” (in what, I don’t know) Kugler will have the whole spectrum in common.

            The figure I quoted was the direct donations to pubic officials in congress, as cited in the article you linked, Myr. Once again, this is an example of you setting goalposts, then moving them. If you want ‘like for like’, how about some honesty, please?

            Accounting was a minor? Then why do you quote net assets? Surely you understand the difference between net reportable assets, tangible assets and expenditure? However, a corporate balance sheet from an annual report (where you get your donation figures from) is a handy guide. ‘Donations’ and ‘Cash’ are reportable (wherever they go), so unless you also believe all organisations have massive cash slush funds (in which case, you’d have to also believe the Organic Food Industry does too), it’s all pretty straight forward. Net profits (EBITDA) are a good figure, less corporate taxes, of course. Oh, then less any distributions to shareholders via dividends.

            Not-for-profits are another beast entirely – where they sink all profits into wages and salaries (usually the salaries of the directors), donation etc., so there is essentially a ‘zero’ balance sheet outcome. Why do you think the anti-GMO movement loves NFP organisations so much. It’s hardly like they’re transparent.

            So to boil it down, you are arguing that you believe that the (estimated) 250,000+ scientist around the world working in plant biology, molecular biology, genetics and related fields, almost all of whom support GE and GM technologies, are all paid off by Monsanto. Wow.

            And you haven’t gone back to check, despite several other posters on here managing to get to the links? Most of my links were via PubMed, because I’m sure you don’t have academic access (or anyone else on here who might want to look at the studies), so I had to find open access previews – unless PubMed was down when you tried (conveniently). I’d suggest if you really want to claim you have any type of balanced perspective, and expect anyone who is pro-GMO to read all the rubbish Mercola posts and Natural News articles you claim as ‘proof’, perhaps you should do everyone the courtesy of actually reading the evidence contradictory to your narrow perspective. Otherwise you’re not demonstrating any form of critical thinking, your demonstrating confirmation bias.

            But we digress.

            What type of testing would be suitable for you, Myr? I’ve asked this several times. How much is enough? What testing would be sufficient for you?

          • I believe I stated the parameters pretty succinctly. Multi species study, at least four variety of appropriate test animals, wider numbers in the study groups, and feed levels that at least approximate the consumption levels that humans experience. Of course that last part will be difficult to determine since GMO foods simply vanish into the ether of commerce.

            I found it strange that all the links were down. even the two that weren’t from Pub. Obviously since I am still posting here, there is no problem with my internet as you suggested.

            The link you provided later worked just fine, but there was no statistical data included, so moot.

          • As you should be aware Myr, as it is published research, you can get access to the data. Unlike Seralini, there is no attempt to hide it. It is just not open access.

            Out of interest, do you also suspect that of being a ‘bought’ study by Monsanto? Because the findings suggest GMOs are dangerous, so by your anti-corporate reasoning, would that not be the case? Either way, I was suspected you’d find some way to dismiss it off-handed.

            I am genuinely disappointed that you haven’t bothered to check any of the links I posted again, because there are feeding studies of GMO foods to pigs, sheep, cows, rats and chickens, all in different studies (on different continents, by different universities and government agencies).

            A quick look (very quick) found the following. I am hazarding a guess here, but I think much of what you ask for is probably accessible and has already been done, if you choose to look.

            And once again, I’ve also checked that none of these listed studies are either by, for or funded by any agro-chemical or associated corporate interest (All are university or government research). There would be three times this number if I included independent or corporate scientific studies.

            Here’s one on rats and Bt corn:
            “Evaluation of subchronic toxicity of dietary administered Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurustaki HD-1 in F344 male rats with chemically induced gastrointestinal impairment.”

            Here’s two on GM corn fed to cattle (Switzerland):
            “Effect of feeding cows genetically modified maize on the bacterial community in the bovine rumen”
            (Germany) 2 year study:
            “Effects of long-term feeding of genetically modified corn (event MON810) on the performance of lactating dairy cows”

            GM corn fed to mice (Portugal):
            Immunological and metabolomic impacts of administration of Cry1Ab protein and MON 810 maize in mouse.

            GM corn fed to pigs (Ireland)
            Transgenerational effects of feeding genetically modified maize to nulliparous sows and offspring on offspring growth and health.

            GM corn fed to hens (US – Illinois)
            “Performance of laying hens fed diets containing DAS-59122-7 maize grain compared with diets containing nontransgenic maize grain.”

            Feeding GM Soy to sheep (3 year study)(Brazil)
            “A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep”

            And, just to round it out – a human trial on soya allergens (GMO and non-GMO).
            “A proteomic study to identify soya allergens–the human response to transgenic versus non-transgenic soya samples”

            All of these links work RIGHT NOW. All are available via GOOGLE search on title, if you somehow don’t manage to get the links working.

            There are literally dozens more, that I know about, including feeding GMO corn meal to salmon, more cow/pigs/rat studies than you can poke a stick at. If you bothered to look.

          • Oh, I get it. Don’t worry about recognised scientific norms for sample sizes. You want them to get the biggest samples they can, until they DO find something, right?

            I guess your years of experience and study in toxicology and immunology (and understanding what acceptable sample sizes are in generation of statistics) would surely allow you to build a better study than any of these.

          • all I can say to that Terry, is that the bigger the sample the closer to real the results get. SURELY they could have gotten more than 5 people with soy allergens for the testing…. flipping a coin 5 times would probably lead to the conclusion that one side lands 3:2 times more often than the other. Possibly 4:1, and at its extreme it always lands on the same side ….

            I actually DON’T want them to find anything wrong, because when they do it means that lots of people are going to be in for a rough time eventually.

            But of course it also means they can’t stop looking

          • its also intriguing that everyone of the above studies showed changes in internal organs in the GM fed subjects… and isn’t maize =corn? better check your three year sheep study from Brazil….

          • Untested? Hidden? Not true. But then, you have been told this time and time again. Here’s a link to Federal GE crops testing.


            Of course, if you are an anti-government conspiricist, then you will not pay any attention to this. In that case, you shouldn’t expect your government, which you don’t trust, to force meaningless labels onto foods just because you want to know which are GE and you are too lazy to look that up yourself.

          • I agree – every link worked so far. I’ve looked at about 75%.

            Are you just dismissing them because they threaten your assumptions?

            That’s rather intellectually dishonest (though, from reading your posts so far, not unexpected)

          • Myr,
            I’ve already explained to you on another thread, which you quickly drop when it gets too hard, that citations don’t necessarily invalidate further papers, because if you follow those citation lists you’ll find that several are ‘discussion papers’, several more cite the original papers for ‘further study needed’, and some even are contrary to the initial work.
            And NONE of the three papers are about GMOs. If you had even bothered to read them, they are actually about isolating and identifying genes and their reactions to bacteria.
            And the retractions were voluntary, by the author: One when they realised the grain purity in the study may have been compromised. If only Seralini and the ant-GMO movement were so ethical…

            When I shut down your ridiculous argument, you simply go full-troll and jump to another thread with the same tired, discredited nonsense. Give it a rest.

            Please show ANY evidence you have, other than the Mercola article, of ANY of these retractions. If you can’t support your claim, STFU about it.

          • Myr, you are seriously referring to Mercola’s own website for a reliable link to prove your erroneous misconceptions about GE study retractions? That is not a credible reference.

            Pamela Ronald is an excellent scientist. You would benefit from reading her work, co-authored with her organic farmer/researcher husband Raul Adamchak. Read their book “Tomorrow’s Table.”

          • Learn what you’re talking about before touching the keyboard. Pam is pro-GM. The retracted paper was about signaling molecules in rice. Basic research. Not a whole lot there about promoting GMO’s. From Retaction Watch:

            “AS A RESULT OF ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS IN P.C.R.’S AND S.W.-L.’S LABORATORIES, WE WISH TO retract our 2009 Report, “A type I–secreted, sulfated peptide triggers XA21-mediated innate immunity” (1). Specifically, we have not been able to consistently reproduce the results shown in Figure 3. We have also discovered critical errors in Figures 2 and S3. The strain PXO99∆ax21, used in Figure 2, was mixed up with another strain (PXO99∆raxSt). When we repeated the experiment with the validated PXO99∆ax21 insertion mutant, this strain is still avirulent on Xa21 lines. These results indicate that this insertion in Ax21 does not abolish the ability of PX099 to trigger XA21-mediated immunity. Regarding fi gure S3, by using more sensitive methods, we have discovered that Ax21 is also secreted in the mutant strains PXO99∆raxA and PXO99∆raxC. Although we recognize that some parts of this paper may remain valid, we note that key parts of the work depend on the results of Figures 2 and 3. For these reasons, we retract the main conclusion of the paper that a type I–secreted, sulfated peptide triggers XA21-mediated innate immunity.”
            Of course the gotcha crowd (Latham, Robinson, Quist, Love and ‘I haven’t done decent science for 20 years Suzuki) got their panties in a wad….as usual.

          • Citing a retracted paper does not necessarily mean that YOUR paper will be (or should be) retracted. Most citations are in the intro and discussion and aren’t part of the ‘meat’ of the study. And once again, papers that deal with signaling molecules have nothing to do with work on the safety of GMO’s. Extrapolating a mistake in her lab to cover any opinion she has on GMOs, their use or their safety is exactly the kind of flawed logic we’ve come to expect from people like you.

          • read this: http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/

            and stop hiding behind the broad spectrum definition of GMO. The contention is on cross phylum transmigration of genes, not crossbreeding or hybridization.

            Then add to it all the total lack of tracking and labeling to obfuscate evidence… small wonder they can’t find any. But the corollaries are still there.

            Perhaps there is a connection between Farmer Sue’s 40% increase of production of GE sugar beets, the refining process of sugar, and the increased incidence of diabetes. I don’t think I could live with myself if I knew for certain I was helping to kill people en masse.

          • Yes, people doing basic research sometimes make mistakes. Why on earth would Mercola draw attention to this? Using this unfortunate event to defend Seralini’s retracted research is comical.

            Then again, it seemed to work for Myr.

          • Thanks for citing the Japanese paper! This is a large and thorough study, but I have never seen it mentioned before. It would be great to see a full translation, but the tables provide a wealth of information.

          • So, since you brought this up, what do GMO’s do to rats?
            (Just to save time, if you have to use the word Seralini in your response, don’t bother).

          • To everybody who wonders why Peter can’t stand the word “Seralini”: In a short thought exchange with me Peter refused to acknowledge that prof. Giles Seralini, Caen U, France, was a top GMO researcher (whose paper, showing SD rats developing tumors, organ malfunctions after being fed GMO corn, was retracted by a new editor at the journal who – guess what? Came from the GMO industry, and re-published; view pictures of the GMO-fed SD rats at http://www.DrHans.org ). Now confirmed with 230 scientists supporting Seralini’s magnificent work, and writing an open letter about GMO industry harassment (1.), and confirming that there was no consensus among scienrtists about GMO food safety (2.).

          • I’ve seen my fare share of websites that look just like that since the late 1990’s. Every one of them was unprofessionally laid out, spewed exaggerated claims, had shock-value pictures, and plenty of advertisements by the website owner. The Nuremburg files by Evangelist Neal Horsley comes to mind. Although to be fare, I won’t dare compare you to him, just the websites.

          • No, Seralini is a ‘paid for opinion’ shill. Look up Seralini’s contribution to the Aspartame debate – the ‘study’ he did is similar to this fake GMO study in too many ways. And it was found out pretty quickly he was paid to make those findings by the US Sugar Industry, after they searched the world for the least-ethical scientist they could find.

            No, Seralini’s study was retracted for a number of reasons, the least of which being the poor construction of the study and the fact that his data did NOT support his findings.

            No, Seralini’s study hasn’t be republished in any reputable journal. He found a fringe ‘pay to play’ publisher and his sponsors paid to have his paper republished in a low-impact activist journal.

            IF Seralini’s studies were legitimate and repeatable, the WHO/UN would confirm GM Corn as a Class 1 Carcinogen, but there is nothing but silence. Remember, it is you anti-GMO types who harp on about how glyphosate is ‘carcinogenic’, because of the Class 2A rating. So why do you think there is no repeatability to Seralini’s study? Why do you think the UN/WHO is silent?

            Oh yes, it’s all part of the great ‘chemtrails/illuminati/new world order conspiracy’…

          • Strange, Peter,

            Seralini’s work had to be peer reviewed PRIOR to publication…. Obviously it met all criteria to be published in the first place. And then this guy from Monsanto becomes an editor for the Journal………

            Seralini’s studies had nothing to do with proving a carcinogen, simply toxin accumulation in the test animals; using exactly the same number of subjects as Monsanto did with their rat tests.

            Why are you buying into the propaganda about tumors when everyone knows that this variety of test animal is prone to them anyway?

          • Myr – you apparently don’t understand how the peer review process works. An ‘internal’ peer review may be conducted prior to publication, but when that is from within an anti-GMO organisation, I doubt it would be conducted with any rigor. A cited reason for retraction was that it was not adequately reviewed prior to publication (funny, but when proGMO studies appear, an argument I hear from antiGMOers is that ‘the peer review process is faulty!!’… except when the research is something I agree with!).

            Once a paper is submitted for publication, it is sent out for peer review. The reviewers of Seralini’s original submission admitted to not reviewing the data or study structure, only the content. Then, the re-published work wasn’t peer reviewed at all!

            You’re correct in that the study wasn’t to find evidence of cancer – however that was the main finding and was trumpeted by Seralini – this was one of the main complaints against the validity of the study. As it was not a study for tumours, appropriate controls were not in place and confounders were not addressed.

            Do you also know Monsanto and Seralini are not the only ones to undertake rat-feeding trials for GMOs? There are several others, from non-industry funded sources, from several countries. I’ve included the links to these in response to your other post.

          • And what is your position concerning the THREE papers that establish the pro GMO that were retracted and NOT republished?

            Does this not indicate that more review, more testing, needs to be done?

            Have you assumed that I am anti GMO? Because this is not true. So many ‘miracles’ have been touted over the past half century, and so many have been proven false…. Tell me with honesty that 90 days is sufficient to prove or disprove ANYTHING.

          • Again, scientist are also humans, and also fallible. Except Seralini, right?

            I say ‘Bravo’! If the papers were flawed, they should be retracted. Whatever the reason – poor design, lack of addressing confounding factors, incorrect or assumed results not supported in data…

            Three papers retracted out of several hundred isn’t a bad rate. Good to see that the peer review process works, right?

            If they haven’t been republished, perhaps the researchers where honest enough to recognise the flaws in their own studies, rather than simply going to another journal that would publish them without a peer review, and for a simple payment?

            Perhaps we wouldn’t be having this conversation if Seralini et al had been that honest.

          • No, they haven’t. I responded to you on this – you didn’t read either the article it was lifted from nor the links that article provides.

            These papers were retracted by the authors when they realised their grain sample wasn’t pure. So they didn’t make claims they couldn’t verify with evidence…like Seralini didn’t.

            Oh, here’s a 104 week study for you, too


          • Hans, let ‘Fluoride Free Thoughts’ defend his own wild claims. Just don’t use this conversation as a lame excuse to promote your personal website!

            Now, if you truly consider Seralini’s 2012 retracted paper to be valid, just tell us what you consider to be the most credible claim, so that we can discuss. Don’t just post links to political sites: tell us specifically what YOU believe.

          • Peterchen, Peterchen! Was sollen wir mit Dir machen?
            Twisting facts — joining the ever growing group of BS-sers (that can’t come up with real facts), having no leg to stand on?????
            Du kannst das doch besser machen!

          • But Herr Dr. Hans, others also have no use for Seralini’s work, and have yet to see you address any of the legitimate issues that have been raised about the 2012 publication/retraction/2014 re-publication. The journal that re-published it is a decent Springer journal (Environmental Sciences Europe), but the editor of that journal pointed out that the paper was being re-published without peer review – so Seralini did not have to respond to the many criticisms in the re-publication (http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463). If people here want to read it themselves, it is here: http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14. You can see in Figure 4 and Table 6 the complete lack of a dose response from a diet of 11% GM corn plant up to 33% GM corn plant, and from three doses of roundup in water, which is VERY odd. There should be some dose response. Also, the responses are the same whether it is GM corn only, GM corn + roundup. or roundup only. Doesn’t that strike you as exceedingly odd that all three of those treatments do the same thing, and yet there is no additivity of any kind? Of course, there are no statistics on any of this because the sample sizes were insufficient. Subsequent nonparametric analyses of his raw data (included with the re-published paper, after two years of requests from colleagues) indicate no significant differences between the controls and any of the treatments for any parameters.

            The authors also provide precious little detail in the Methods about the plants used in the study, besides the varieties used and that they were grown under “normal conditions”. What constitutes “normal conditions”? Did they receive any insecticides while being grown? How much water was used in the roundup application, and when was it applied relative to the time the cobs were sampled? Shoddy descriptions of the experiment that prevent accurate duplication of the experiment.

            I could go on and on, but will stop there. I had a group of my students critique this paper in a discussion of GM crops and they shredded it. This is garbage science and doesn’t deserve the praise it is receiving. You have never addressed any of the criticism, but instead continue to praise the work and author perhaps hoping that if you do it long enough the critics will give up and quit. Saying that Seralini is a top GMO researcher is like saying that Putin is a top humanitarian.

            Und es ist sehr nett dass du immer noch Deutsch kannst. Freut mich.

          • Just a few quick comments: I only “listened in” with the discussions after an anti-aging colleague challenged me to do so – – suggesting that the rift between orthodox and anti-aging medicine/views expresses itself everywhere. He was absolutely correct! Sad, but a reality. As many of us in anti-aging see it: money-dominated special interest bullshit (with profits out-weighing any concern for people’s health) on one side, and alternative, anti-aging, medicine – skyrocketing – on the other.

            And now to you.
            1) YOU: “others also have no use for Seralini’s work.”
            RESPONSE: you mean other GMO-lovers, GMO interests? In Europe he is recognized as a top scientist; I could quote you researchers who (including myself) look at his papers as immaculately detailed, and precise – -” like a perfect thesis,” with support for him as leading scientist demonstrated again with hundreds of scientists signing a supporting “open letter” when all this GMO-harassment became so obvious.

            2) YOU: referring to Seralini’s paper: “lack of a dose response from a diet of 11% GM corn plant up to 33% GM corn plant, and from three doses of roundup in water,”
            RESPONSE: I did read the paper again, and, with every possible detail discussed, this minor detail appears unnecessary; but, why don’t you ask him this question before, with a hysterical urge to tear him down, you draw conclusions? Here is his e-mail:
            [email protected]

            3) YOU: “I had a group of my students critique this paper in a discussion of GM crops and they shredded it.”
            RESPONSE: Come on now; what do those little twits know? But they know what YOU think, and, so obvious, they want to kiss DADDY’s ass. HALLELUJAH!

            Bis bald!

          • 1) Seralini may be regarded as a top researcher in some circles, but not very many. But that is merely a matter of opinion. I know how you feel about him and his research, but my opinion is that your opinion lacks any critical assessment of Seralini’s work, which can be avoided by “just looking at the pictures”, which you are kind enough to provide illegally on your website. Odd that you venerate this man, but then violate the copyright on his work (which he doesn’t own, by the way). That open letter is nonsensical.

            2. Dose response is unnecessary?? Have you never done toxicology work? Any toxicological material exhibits a dose response. In the absence of a dose response, it can safely be assumed that the material being evaluated is unrelated to the expressed symptoms. Or the researcher selected the wrong range of doses for assessment. In either case, Seralini’s work failed to find a relationship. This lack of relationship between the treatments and the tumor formation is further supported by the lack of a relationship between tumor incidence and gm crop alone, roundup alone, or GM crop plus roundup. They were all the same. That makes no sense, and suggests again that there is no relationship but that the results are artifacts. And, of course, in the absence of sufficient replication there is no way to conclude otherwise. Unless you have an agenda to maintain.

            3. Maybe you were taught in an environment where students felt compelled to share their teacher’s opinion, but I don’t run my classes that way. This particular class was a group of 9 graduate students and I shared no opinion with them about the paper previously. They led the discussion and I mostly listened. When I offered input I shifted my opinion back and forth to force them to truly analyze the paper without being swayed by my opinion. But then you don’t know much about my opinion toward GM crops, either, beyond what you assume from these boards. My GM world isn’t nearly as black and white as you think it is. But I can live with that.

          • Pogo:
            Sometimes I – honestly – get the impression that you really see nothing wrong with GMOs(?)

            See my – a few minutes ago – lengthy response to Terry Hill’s challenge re. the article at AcademicsReview. I responded because I expect Terry (or somebody else) to respond to my challenge to evaluate the Norwegian Government scientist’s conclusion that GMOs are NOT safe – – the basis for rejecting GMOs in Norway.

            NORWEGIAN GOVT STUDY: “No scientific evidence of GMO food safety”
            “Contrary to this assertion (-from
            MONSANTO, that GMO foods are safe-) , the literature provides indications of harmful and adverse effects to the environment and to health (both animal and human), as well as to socio-economic conditions, particularly over the medium- and long-term.”


          • I’m not sure if you are asking something of me or not, but I don’t have time to review the Norwegian document right now.

            I have concerns about GM products, especially some of the new RNAi materials in the pipeline, but I also see great potential for good in them. What I find sad is people like yourself who find nothing RIGHT with GMOs, and so cling to any bit of science, pseudo- or otherwise, to prove that point. And so you end up regaling a Seralini and a Seneff, neither of whom add anything credible to the discussion, except that they are scientists and agree with your position. You just keep hammering on those same few keys, in the debate equivalent of the Chinese water torture. Es ist reiner Quatsch, mein lieber Spitzbub’.

          • Pogo: The world goes in cycles.
            On a radio show where I am co-host, I was – – with my (and others) making ESCs via Nuclear Transfer – – just referred to as one of the original gene-(actually DNA) manipulators. Ha, Ha!

            How this connects to my worries re anti-aging, endocrine disruption, and newly evolving risks was presented in an introductory talk to doctors at the 2012 A4M medical congress. If you get bored with your daily routine, check it out. It is available (for free) at ACADEMIA.edu :

            What REALLY worries me about some people who complain about Seralini IS THEIR obvious LACK OF UNDERSTANDING LONGEVITY STUDIES/ RESULTS:
            Giving a – theoretical,Seralini-like – longevity study example (# of animals kept simple for easier math):

            100 animals in “treated” e.g. GMO-fed
            10 animals in “controls.”
            Results (theoretical) 20 animals died in “treated”, and 2 in “controls.

            THE COMPLAINT: “see, because of the smaller number of animals in the control group, they now will say that 10 times more animals died in the “treated” than in the “controls.”
            IT TOOK THEM SOME TIME – – and I had to explain with percentages – – to understand why the summary of this longevity (my response) study was: :

            NO! No difference between treated and controls; no effect.!
            I had to explain it with “same percentage of animals in both groups died.”

            And brainless complaints/thinking like this is

            used against the Seralini study?????.- – and taken serious as “proof” that Seralini’s “study design” was wrong?

          • Dr. Hans, the simplified study you are describing is a badly designed mortality study, not longevity. In a longevity study, one measures the time to death, not simply the number dying. In a mortality study one measures the numbers dying within a pre-determined period (with duration depending on whether it is an acute or chronic study). So, saying that 20% died in a longevity study is meaningless. The question is how long they lived (e.g., days, weeks, months, years). In a mortality study you would report the percentage that died in the pre-determined period. So, what you are describing is only appropriate for a mortality study.

            Also, the design of your fake study is horribly unbalanced, which seriously affects the results and interpretation. You are indicating that there are 10 times as many subjects in the experimental as in the control group. This asymmetry changes the relative values of individuals in each cohort. Whereas the death of one subject in the experimental group only changes the overall outcome by 1% (1 out of 100), the death of one subject in the control group affects the outcome by 10% (1 out of 10). Thus, each individual adds a completely different weight and variance in the two groups, making comparisons useless. And we end up with a situation where it takes 20 rats in the experimental treatment to have the same effect as 2 rats in the controls. Very poor design. You need a balanced design where each group – experimental treatment and control – would have received 55 subjects each of the 110 used. Although if I were designing the experiment, I would probably run 5 replicates of 11 subjects each for the experimental and control treatments to introduce variance for analyses (whether it were a mortality or longevity study). The design you presented, besides being horribly unbalanced, precludes analysis with parametric methods. Another major flaw. But Seralini made basically the same errors, so your example roughly proliferates his errors, making it a reasonable example of his work.

          • Sometimes I get the feeling that – – so much in a hurry to express criticism – – you don’t read what I wrote.
            I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU, and I noted that
            “Giving a – theoretical,Seralini-like – longevity/mortality study example (# of animals kept simple for easier math).”

            What I expressed – – what worries me – – is that some “professional” Seralini objectors – – preaching from a high-horse “I know everything” position – – interpret results INCORRECTLY ( – as you described).

            So, what are these so-called “professionals”?
            Bullshitters that are taken seriously when expressing their – WRONG – criticism?

            PS: For our longevity studies, the life-spans of mice (“controls” on a standard Purina mouse chow), were very well defined,

          • Dr. Hans, I’m confused by your response. So you are saying that you are critical of Seralini’s paper because the study was poorly designed and lacked replication? If so, what is the criticism to which you are applying your scenario? All of the critics of Seralini I know would agree that your scenario is defective, and therefore the Seralini study is defective. Or are you referring to the lack of differences between the treatments and controls that is often pointed out by critics? I’m unclear of your point.

          • I have always thought that Seralini 2012 would be a great teaching tool for college students in biology, statistics, or even politics.

          • It’s a good one for the GM crops debate, but it doesn’t offer anything for statistics other than being an example of weak experimental design. Certainly a good paper for a discussion of critical thinking and the power of external pressures on the integrity of science.

          • Seralini’s longivity findings are male rats live onger when fed RoundUp.

            How does this fit with your anti-aging theories?

          • In your dreams! Sometimes quoted, but never responded to when asked for reference. SO, REFERENCE PLEASE !

            In the meantime: REAL results from the Seralini paper:

            “In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. “

            “Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group,”


            Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and
            deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed
            with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments. Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic

            Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.

            PS: a suggestion, derived from our longevity studies with SA, Jackson Lab, mice, and which ALWAYS went past 90 days:
            Re-name the “90-day established industry studies”
            “90-day-pull-the-wool-over-peoples-eyes GMO-industry BS farces.”

            Why don’t they do 3-day studies? Would guarantee “no difference between treated and controls.” – – – which, interpreted by any GMO parrot, would mean “Safe.” Ha, Ha, Ha!

          • Anybody can bullshit!
            YOU claimed that – Seralini study – male rats fed Roundup (glyphosate) lived longer.
            ALL I ASKED FOR was a reference to your claim.
            So, no reference to your – bullshit – claim???

            Another GMO Troll avoiding an answer?

          • Hello again, Hans. It seems your cognitive dissonance is still strong.

            I happened upon this study while looking through a mountain of non-industry funded, global scientific papers that showed equivalence of GMOs, and noted you’re still trolling out the Norwegian ‘Report’ that I’ve already addressed. So, you don’t learn?

            This is how science works – an actual study by actual scientists, not a junk-science stacked study by an activist to ‘find’ evidence he wanted.

            Oh, it’s a 104-week study. By the Japanese government.

            And you obviously still haven’t read my review of Seralini’s data? Simple analysis of his own data prove his findings are NOT supported by the data.

          • Terry, Hans thinks academia.edu is a credible source for publication. And Hans is listed on Quackwatch. I would be very surprised if he could even understand your review — his vocabulary is limited to “troll” and “bovine-poo poo.” You are trying to reason with a 10-year old namecalling playground bully.

          • Terry, just read your link to the abstract to the 104-week Japanese study. Very interesting! Thanks for posting it here.

          • Hello Terry:
            In a recent lengthy response to you I commented on your remarks about Seralini, and also showed you that the Norwegian study was really done by the Norwegian Government, listed names of scientists (I had talked to) that worked on the study, besides being headed by Georgina Catacora-Vargas who was, PREVIOUSLY with the Faculty of Agricultural, Livestock and Forestry Sciences, University Mayor de San Simon, Cochabamba, Bolivia.

            GMO Trolls – – when it comes to real, extensive, studies – – just love to deny them. So, please don’t follow their – – extreme ignorance-demonstrating – – patterns.
            I challenged several GMO ElToroPooPooers to show anything wrong with this study. But, obviously incapable of doing so, they chicken out:

            Again, because sometimes doesn’t come up:

            Or just paste it into address – URL – line.

            PS: one more comment about the – frequent – bullshit complaint that Seralini used tumor-prone SD rats:
            What do you think humans are? Tumor/cancer -resistant?

            My – extensive – longevity studies at RU, Chicago, were right along the lines of Seralini’s “LONGER than the phony ’90-day-pull-the wool over people’s eyes
            GMO-BS farces’ “.

            So, Terri, you seem honestly concerned about finding answers. But when somebody with real experience in this field shows you that your arguments are on very shaky grounds, acknowledge them, instead of humping on them from a slightly different angle, and sit back and wait: somebody may publish something in support of your thinking.

          • Hans, I find it sad and almost embarrassed for you, that someone like you, who claims to be an academic, constantly resorts to such poor tactics as ignoring responses, false flags/herrings, argumentative fallacies and childish commentry.

            I responded to your Norwegian ‘study’ nonsense, and you ignored it. No response.
            1) It wasn’t a study, it was a paper, making recommendations to the Norwegian government. You failed to comprehend that from the TITLE “Sustainability REPORT”.
            2) It wasn’t BY the Norwegian government, it was FOR them.
            3) It reviewed another study, done in South America, and recommended further studies.

            So the report recommends a precuationary approach stating there were gaps in the findings – fair enough. However, I can challenge it’s overall validity.

            The finding that “the literature provides indications of harmful and adverse effects to the environment and to health (both animal and human)” – unfortunately, leans on the discredited work of Carmen and Seralini.

            As for your continued, off-topic waffling – another red herring – what does the credentials of the author have to do with the topic? Seralini is well credentialed, too – it doesn’t mean they don’t make errors (or in Seralini’s case, manufacture evidence and lie).

            Regarding Seralini – as every one of your other points have been addressed and taken down – In my very long response where I SHOWED the data he provided did not demonstrate his claims – The fact that he used Sprague-Dawley rats indicates that he had ulterior motives for his study. Combine that with his claim that his study was NOT a carcinogenicity study, and that 60% of his ‘findings’ that he trumpeted and heralded to the media circus he set-up to ‘release’ his findings (prior to peer review)… it’s not hard to see it was more like a product roll out than science.
            Again, if you were actually half the scientist you claim, Hans, you’d also know what every first year science student learns – you cannot claim ‘findings’ in a research paper that your research was not looking for. If he found coincidental tumours, an ethical scientist would have recommended further study on the tumours and constructed such a study to remove confounders that would affect tumour growth. As no such controls were in place, his ‘conclusion’ that GMOs caused the tumours in itself can be outright dismissed.

            Oh, and one last thing. You’d be happy to know (as you continue to rant about ’90-day blah blah’ – scientific community standard for toxicity test, but hey, what do you know about science, right) – In responding to another anti-science douche-bag, I found this. Happy reading:
            It’s a 104-week (yes, two years) study on feeding GMO soy to rats (not Sprague-Dawley). And it was ACTUALLY done by a GOVERNMENT organisation, not an independent advisory group with unknown agendas.

            Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health. Tokyo, Japan:

            Guess what? That’s right… sorry to burst your bubble. NO evidence of any toxicity, tumours, inflamed organs…

          • And please tell me again what your longevity studies have to do with GMO consumption? Please, drop that dead horse.
            No one cares about your longevity studies, they are 100% irrelevant to this discussion.

          • So… Why no comment on the 104 week study?
            As for J Randall Stewart’s claim – that some male rats in Seralini’s study lived longer when fed Glyphosate feed – that’s actually in Seralini’s data. But you would know that if you actually looked at it.
            Why do you insist on a single NON GOVERNMENT advisory paper as some type of proof?? It’s NOT a research study, it’s not BY the Norwegian government, and it wrongly quotes Seralini as valid research (issued before that gutter-trash was retracted).

            Every time you’re proved wrong, you move the goal posts?

            Give it up, Hans. It is you that should come back to scientific reality, you deluded buffoon. I’ve called you out on every single piece of BS you’ve thrown up here, yet you can’t get past your cognitive dissonance/deliberate arrogance.

            Even the European Food Safety Agency (with contributing academics from several leading UK and continental universities) has now found glyphosate is probably NOT carcinogenic.

            The jokes been on you, Hans. Give it up, you’ve looked foolish for too long.

          • Several rats fed glyphosate-soaked feed outlived the controls. In fact, from Seralini’s own data – mortality was HIGHER amongst the control (non-GMO fed rats). He conveniently leaves this out of his data.

            One of the problems with Seralini’s data is that the control group, against which he bases claims on ‘witch rat died first’ and ‘had less cancers’ was only 10% of the rats studied.

            Mathematically, when you have 9 study rats for every one control rat, the chances of a study rat dying first is 9:1. So the fact he trumpeted that study rats ‘died earlier’ is pure nonsense and irrelevant to the study outcomes.

            All rats, both control and study-groups, had tumor incidence, tumor size, morality etc within expected (2SD) statistical limits.

            I’ve even showed my old research statistics lecturer (a Doctor of Mathematics in statistics) Seralini’s data, and with about half an hour she called me and said “Nothing in this data support the claims of the study”.

          • Thanks for the reply, I didn’t have the source bookmarked I had on that, and I was too dumb or lazy to get it again within a few minutes of looking. Besides, talking to Hans is sometimes entertaining, but not exactly productive.

            I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, as evidenced by my “B” out of college level statistics. But that was one of the most useful classes I took. I could look at the data myself and see that is wasn’t statistically significant.

          • You don’t have to be an ‘A’ student to understand science, you just need the capacity to think critically and apply reasoned deduction based on evidence. And I agree, it is imperative to understand research statistics (yes, it was a hard subject!) if you want to be able to discern fact from spin. You’ve done better than Hans!

            I’ve noted that Hans name comes up a few times on Quackwatch for his views on pseudoscientific nonsense and long-winded, off-topic waffling, so despite his constant red herrings and irrelevant references to his ‘longevity studies’, any appeal to authority he thinks he has is null and void. He has demonstrated no understanding of the scientific method, the purpose or process of peer review, or even the difference between a research study and an opinion article – which frankly astounds me, since he claims to have a Ph.D. (He is also ‘president’ of various ‘alternative’ and ‘natural’ medicine groups, believes ‘chemtrails’ are real etc).

            I’ve asked him what exactly his Ph.D is in, and where/by whom it was conferred… but no response. I wonder if it isn’t one of those $2500, one-page essay type, like a Ph.D. in Natural Healing?

          • unable to find ANY facts/study re glyphosate-fed animals live longer.
            It’s most likely like the carbon industry’s intentional planting of bogus arguments.

            Give me reference if you have one, please.

            The real risk with glyphosate is endocrine disruption; read about it, or listen – video – Theo Colborn, Florida U. – – mimicking estrogens:


          • Hans, stop obfuscating. It’s in Seralini’s own data, you twit. Are you incapable of reading data, or, as I suspect, simply being deliberately ignorant?

            You continually claim some scientific credentials, therefore I’m not going to spoon feed you the data AGAIN. It’s there for you to look at.

            Seralini’s data (that doesn’t support his own findings) is now on his website. Read it and weep.

            Reference: Seralini’s data.

            Oh, and ANOTHER off-topic post when your last argument is destroyed? No comment on the Japanese 104 week study?
            You’re really pathetic.

          • “deliberately ignorant”
            — a euphemism for “dishonest”?

            Hans’s comments on threads like this are the scientific equivalent of graffiti—but without the artistic skill.

          • Soooooooooo typical: when you don’t have facts/references you ElToroPooPoo and revert to name-calling!
            Some time ago you insisted that the Norwegian Government study – rejecting GMOs – wasn’t a Government study. I PROVED IT TO YOU, challenging you to find something wrong with it, AND YOU WERE UNABLE TO DO SO!

            Now you – – like many GMO lovers – – can’t come up with a URL to a “fact” you insisted on, AND AGAIN YOU WERE UNABLE TO DO SO, and following your established practice, instead revert – again – to name calling.

            So, to bring you up-to-par, here is the latest video, answering questions you – constantly – insisted to deny:

            And how about the (phony) GMO-industry cover-up of the “established industry 90-day (safety) studies” that I re-named “90-day pull-the-wool-over-peoples-eyes GMO industry farces” ?

            Seralinis “longer than 90 days” studies exposed the GMO-industry BS, and (re length) are in agreement with our longevity studies at RU, Chcago, elaborated on in by book “LIFE-LONG HEALTH; learn how to control your genes to stay young with age.” available at nonprofit, health education ($ 1.99) at http://www.iaam.ca .

            Now, Terri, aren’t you happy that you brought it up?

          • Hans, I am really concerned about your mental stability. It’s rich that someone who has consistently behaved like a tantrum-throwing eight-year old (“PooPoo”) complains about name calling. You seem to be unable to even spell the most straightforward five letter names, like “Terry”. Which, no doubt, is yet another of you pathetic attempts to get under my skin because your arguments are so weak.

            “Some time ago you insisted that the Norwegian Government study – rejecting GMOs – wasn’t a Government study. I PROVED IT TO YOU” – proved what?
            1. It isn’t a study, it’s a review. Are you unable to read?

            2. It isn’t a government study. It’s provided by a third party ‘independent’ consultancy group.
            3. It still referenced Seralini, before Seralini was retracted. So it’s reference to ‘GMO concerns’ are less than valid.
            4. False flag: find something wrong with it? I don’t challenge the recommendations of that particular review, in that on the evidence it goes by, it finds insufficient evidence of safety. What I do challenge is YOUR deranged assertion that ‘insufficient evidence of safety’ equates to DANGER! It calls for further study – again, I don’t have any problem with that.

            Hans, what do you mean ‘can’t come up with a URL’ – for what? Every time (time after time) I prove you wrong – and believe me, it’s getting easier as your deranged ramblings continue – you ignore the evidence and change the topic.

            Here, because you are apparently ‘internet impaired’:

            NOW – Go to the data. Open the Excel spread sheet. Look at the bottom lines. See how many control rats and study rats (GMO/Glyphosate fed) rats lived to the end of the study. More control rats (% of population) died than study rats.
            I’m sure even a pseudo-scientist like you can understand the high-school level mathematics involved.

            A YouTube video? Since when has YouTube been a depository of reputable scientific research? Do you believe it’s OK, that if you research doesn’t hold up to honest peer review, or is totally un-replicable, that simply posting a YouTube video makes it real?

            While you’re continuing to ‘bang on’ like a rusty gate about ‘Seralini’s Longer than 90 day study’ – Why are you continuing to ignore the Japanese Metropolitan Institute of Public Health?

            Why do you continually ignore this genuine scientific study, by REPUTABLE, NON-CORPORATE (non-activist-paid) scientists, and divert? Oh, that’s right. Because your argument is weak and diversion, false flags and misdirection are the last resorts of the con man.

            The judge had you figured out years ago. Using lies and fabrications you know are untrue to further your agenda makes you a poor excuse for a human being, Hans, and an even worse excuse for a scientist. This isn’t name calling, this is what you are.

          • Good question. No response to your posted study. Interesting lack of intellectual honesty from the Dr…

          • I’ll buy your TG dinner if you can get this guy to get off the “poo-poo” language, and answer any of your questions, Terry. It’s either that, or “shills” or “trolls.” He ain’t got nuttin’ else to respond with. Nothing.
            Of course longevity studies are irrelevant to GE discussions, unless you are either ole Hans, or Food Babe.

          • His Anti-GMO stance is dogmatic. Can you show me a paper that shows ONLY modified genes do any damage? Every single paper or study I have read always includes Pesticides and Herbicides. This is a problem with these chemicals not with GMOs themselves.

          • If the “His” refers to me, it shows that you live in a fantasyworld, disconnected from reality!
            What are the major two types of GM-corn all about?
            One has a built-in manufacture of a pesticide (that kills the bugs that want to eat the corn) – – – and with this one you (the ignoramus that eats this crap) gets a lot of endocrine-disrupting, poisonous pesticide.

            The other has a built-in gene so that the GM-corn is resistant against herbicide – – – – and with this one you (the ignoramus that eats the crap) gets a lot of (again endocrine-disrupting), poisonous herbicide.

            Seralini fed both types of GM-corn to SD rats, and pictures of the GM-corn-fed rats can be viewed at http://www.iaam.ca (there just scroll down).

            And in the process we exposed “the industry established 90-day safety studies” as “Pull-the-wool-over-peoples-eyes 90-day
            GMO industry farces.”

            In parting, let me quote you the summary statement from a recent Tufts U. study:
            “Half of the Studies Find Cause For Concern … The Other Half Are Studies By the GMO Food Industry itself.”

          • His refers to Seralini. You refer to my point exactly. It is pesticides and herbicides that are hurting people not the GMOs themselves. Pushing an anti-GMO agenda based on this evidence seems unethical because it doesn’t actually prove GMOs are the culprit. Rallying against the US Corn, Soybean, Wheat subsidies would be much more beneficial to the public. For these reasons I cannot help but see Seralini’s views as dogmatic. Just today I went through the citations of an anti-GMO meta analysis that completely misrepresented other studies. It suggested horizontal gene transfer from GMO foods to intestinal bacteria when the study they referred came to the complete opposite conclusion. And they even quoted a line of the paper that made it seem like the study completely agreed with their analysis. I am not looking to follow someone’s ideology I just want to see non biased studies. I wouldn’t even read a Monsanto paper I know they are pure evil. They created agent Orange and Bovine Growth Hormone.

          • Actually, ‘Agent Orange’ is a new term for Dioxin, a waste product from producing Carbontetrachloride which has been around longer than Monsanto. Carbontet has caused brain damage in thousands of people but its appeal as a dry-cleaning agent (especially for haberdashers) led to the idiom ‘Mad as a hatter’. Monsanto’s crime here is looking to find a new way to ‘use’ what they already knew was a deadly toxin.

            As for the idea that the GMO’s may not be directly responsible for harming people, consider this: The get-away driver is just as guilty as the robber who shot the guard. The idea that GMO crops are enabled to withstand higher concentrations of pesticides (in some cases, specifically ‘Round Up Ready’ crops) What would be the point other than to put more poison on them?

            As to your assumption that you won’t find random genes from the foods you eat in your DNA? Incorrect assumption, you DO find said random sequences frequently.

          • You mean the retracted Seralini study? You’ll have to do better. The methodology was too flawed to draw any conclusions. The controls developed tumors too.

            A legitimate study can easily be done. Why don’t you do it? Certainly, you have funding for such a basic study. And given the reviewers comments when the paper was retracted, it would be simple for you to repeat the study with adequate experimental design, appropriate strains of animal models, informative control groups, and clear results, right? This would, if done properly, certainly be material worthy of Nature, Science, NEJM, The Lancet, etc. It would really be an incredible read.

            So why aren’t you performing this simple experiment to show how horrible GMOs are for humans instead of bloviating uselessly on a discussion forum, doctor?

          • Fsm, to do a legit double-blind study on humans, to address activists’ erroneous claims that “GMOs have never been tested for safety on humans!!” would require two control groups of humans, carefully monitored to eat either zero GE foods or foods with GE, preferably starting at birth to address activists’ erroneous developmental claims. The good Hans would need to remove babies from their monthers’ arms and segregate them for this “experioment.” Which would go on how long, Hans? A decade? OK, a decade. Then, these human children — preferably a large group for statistical reliability, like maybe 100 or 200 children — would be followed for the rest of their lives to determine whether they had negative health effects (to test the null hypothesis that “GE foods cause cancer”). Oh, and these human children would have to have their food segregated into GE and non-GE for the rest of theire lives, because, who knows? — ending the experiment at age 10 and putting these human children back into the general population to eat whatever they want, including GE foods starting at age 11, could taint the results at age 60 or 80 or whenever they start testing for cancer “caused” by GE foods.

            Additionally, of course, none of these human children would ever be subjected to other independent cancer-causing variables in their entire lives, including coffee, sunlight, cigarettes of course, and a host of other known cancer-causing variables (when taken at extreme doses).

            Or, to prevent a lifetime of confinement of these human children now turned adults, they could be merely dissected to test for cancers at age 11.

            What do you think, Hans? You approve of these protocols? No? Then just WHAT protocols would YOU use for a reliable and scientific double-blind replicable study? (Replicable with, say, another 200 children or so)

            Or do you want to do a rat study yourself, Hans? Why not? If the protocols and sample sizes and methodology are legit, I’d kick in $10 myself to help you “replicate” the Seralini study you worship.

            Otherwise, perhaps it is better for you to keep your mouth shut until you have learned something about Seralini, rats, GE, and approved scientific trials. Heck, I’d give you $10 myself, just for you to do that.

            You on?

          • I didn’t even want to get into the human models. I just wanted him to repeat the Seralini experiments, correcting for the obvious experimental design flaws. He’d certainly improve on his current total lack of credibility.

          • It has been scientifically proven that if you are bitten by a radioactive spider you gain superpowers. 71% of all responsible scientists agree.

          • You mean what Pesticides do to rats. How can conclude that it is ONLY the Genetic Material giving rats cancer and not the pesticides?

          • Seriously, which statement do you prefer concerning what you might eat or feed to your children:

            1.) there is no evidence indicating that this my be unhealthy,yet.

            2.) After extensive testing and human trials, we have determined that this is beneficial to your health.

            To date there have been ZERO human trials concerning the safety of GMOs, and several studies that have indicated that the increase of GMOs in our diet leads to cancers… Neither have sufficient time to establish ‘proof’. Err on the side of caution? or profit.

          • No, there hasn’t. If there has (other than the rat trial), please post one or two links? I’d love to see them.

          • What many people fail to realize when they suggest that long term testing needs to be done is that the process of creating gm foods isn’t the same as creating, for instance, a new drug. Drugs require long term testing to establish their effects on human biology. A gm food doesn’t contain anything new. They simply produce a protein (or sometimes stop producing one) that was not previously part of that particular organism. The effects of any protein selected to be expressed are already well known and understood. There isn’t any plausible reason to require long term testing for something that has no hypothetical way of changing the health risk.

          • Unfortunately your assumption is in error. Migrating genes from organisms changes the way they work; ie: corn with ‘naturally’ occurring pesticides, and resistance to herbicides like Glycosphate. Studies have shown the potential migration of proteins via the digestive process. Do you really want these things in YOUR kids?

            90 day trials on test animals are insufficient to establish any level of safety; and Monsanto admits that there have been ZERO human trials.

            But this is all on the science side of the issue. At present, in the USA, 93% of consumers have demanded labeling and disclosure, Vermont has already set such mandates in place, and 20 other states have similar legislation on the table.

            Monsanto, Pepsico, and others, have spent just over $27million to block labeling. about 33% more than simple compliance would have cost. Perhaps they want to cover up the fact they have been shoving something people don’t want on them……

            Regardless, there have not been sufficient studies done to sooth the fears of the general public. Both sides have had published peer reviewed studies retracted. And in the long run, ignoring the demands of the consumer leads to loss of profits. Simple example is the ‘debate’ of VHS vs Beta… Despite beta format’s superiority, it failed the consumer by being over-priced. At this point in time, the science doesn’t matter, there isn’t enough of it to sway the public. Doesn’t mean that in the future GMOs won’t become the miracle food source, but performance will have to be far better than the Golden Rice debacle, will have to show an actual increase in yields over conventional farming, will have to stop destroying the beneficial micro organics in the soil, etc etc etc…. so far, GMOs (not hybridization) have not lived up to the promises made.

          • No, the genes produce the same protein no matter what organism they are in. Migration of proteins via the digestive tract? That doesn’t make any sense and i would like to see such studies. Most people surveyed also wanted labels for food that contains dna too, just shows what people don’t really understand.
            All of these things are already in me and my kids and we’re doing just fine. You fail to make the distinction between a protein and a drug, which is common, and these proteins are well known and have been consumed for a long time unlike new drugs.
            As far as gmos not living up to expectations, then why are they still commonly sought after by farmers who are the ones that primarily benefit from them?

          • since you’re asking that question its obvious you have. considering that the Seralini study was republished including additional data, and no one has submitted a real reason for the original retraction, its evident you are behind on current events.

          • Plus, the paper was not peer reviewed prior to republication, so Seralini never directly addressed the strong and valid criticisms directed at the study, expt design, and conclusions. It’s worthless crap.

          • Many studies have made it through the publisher’s review process and are later retracted. It’s not unheard of for additional scrutiny to result in a retraction after publication.

          • are you silly in the head or what? Just as some positions oppose the use of GMO’s, hidden behind the veil of misdirection, ie ‘anti GMO’ there are those that promote false assumptions that vertical gene splicing is beneficial, ie ‘pro GMO’. Most popponants mix the two very different methodologies as being the same, vertical vs horizontal gene manipulation, when in fact they are very different indeed. Horizontal gene manipulation occurs when crossing similar species, such as donkey and horse to produce mule; where-as vertical gene manipulation takes genetic material form one class of species, ie bacterium, and injecting it into an organism that would never naturally develop it ie: corn, or soy. This is propagandist fabrication and assertions of safety have no basis in scientific research; simply because the distribution of tampered with ‘crops’ have not been tracked to destinations where actual results could be ascertained. Which of course only leaves corollaries as any evidence of foul play. And the corollaries are numerous but ‘unprovable’. Not one GMO company has met the requirement to PROVE safety of their products. NOT ONE. Yet this trash is foisted off on an unsuspecting populace, who is told they don’t need to know that what they are eating or feeding their children has been tampered with. And no, legitimate retractions are not done for reasons other than subject matter.

          • “are you silly in the head or what?’
            Yes,  frequently. My head is the only one I feel comfortable in and it can occasionally be a fun place.
            The rest of your comment hinges on the basis that nature adheres to some sort of rule or employs a safety mechanism that is being circumvented when genes are traded artificially or from organisms that aren’t compatible in a reproductive sense. There is no evidence that incorporating a gene from a different organism violates any rules of nature (since nature does this occasionally on her own) or that any natural safety mechanism exists.
            Suggesting that “foul play” is involved is pointless.  And again insisting that “safety” must be proven is nonsensical since no other breeding technique has, or should be, required to endure the impossible burden of proving safety.
            And your suggestion that the seralini study was retracted for reasons other than that it couldn’t support it’s own conclusions lacks proof.

          • my ‘suggestion’ that Seralini’s study actually did support its conclusions was that it was thoroughly peer reviewed prior to its initial publication, and then, mysteriously all those peers that reviewed it were wrong? Add the ‘totally coincidental’ appointment of an editor who came from Monsanto’s corporate pool… and I suppose you have to admit there was something more than just a substance issue at work. At the very least, that particular editor should have recused himself, just a any competent attorney or judge would do in light of potential conflict of interest issues.

            As to ‘foul play’ I am not suggesting. I am stating unequivocally that GMO crops were foisted off on the global population, without letting the general population know that these ‘New and Improved’ food substitues were on the shelves or being stuffed into livestock.

            Additionally, nature DOES play by a rules book primarily, I have yet to see a hybrid cat/dog and these are both mammals, far closer genetically than bacterium and corn….. Yes of course there must be exceptions, there always are to any rule, and yes genetic material can be exchanged via the digestive system, typically this leads to either junk genes or illness, rarely does it lead to a viable new organism, but there are a few (this is where you point at sweet potatoes and say ‘SEE?! LOOK!’ Name 9 more out of the millions of species that have evolved on earth over the past 4 billion years).

            The idea that GMO companies PROVE safety is not my idea, although I agree with it, This is a mandate these companies are legally required to comply with. Monsanto has it posted verbatim on their website. If they cannot comply, then they should not release any unproven product on the market.

            Thousands of manufacturing companies shout from the rooftops when they release something ‘New and Improved’ so why has Monsanto, Pepsico, Coca-cola, and others spent millions to avoid this obvious advertising campaign? How does a company that on paper has a net worth of $1.5million, spend an average of $7million a year in lobbying costs?

            Mind you, I am not anti ‘biotech’ I honestly believe that someday this field of study can have significant impact. Even today there are some ‘discoveries’ that have practical application, such as Aspartame, as a paint additive to roach proof your house FABULOUS! But you should never put that poison in your body. Even cockroaches know better.

          • Yes, the paper was peer reviewed. It met the requirements to be published, didn’t have illustrations drawn in crayon, and was deemed suitable for publication. Immediately after it’s release, which was done in a rather unusual way (advanced copies to press released under a gag order prohibiting outside experts to be consulted for translation to the journalists. The coincidental release of a book and documentary by Seralini about the paper’s findings.), the paper received heavy criticism from other experts in the field. This happens. The initial review by the journal’s staff isn’t a proof of validity of the paper. Retractions happen, and hopefully would continue to do so. This is a sign of a reputable publisher.
            “I am stating unequivocally that GMO crops were foisted off on the global population, without letting the general population know that these ‘New and Improved’ food substitues were on the shelves or being stuffed into livestock.”
            They are food, not substitutes. One at a time genetic changes alter the plant far less drastically than other breeding methods which result in many unknowns in reshuffling the genome. Mutagens, such as ruby red grapefruit have mutated genes that may not be found in any other organism.
            Again, safety can’t be proven. Nothing is 100% safe. Only the amount of risk compared to other similar instances can be calculated. No expert has even come up with a credible hypothesis as to how genetic modification could result in a safety issue greater than that of traditional methods.
            The reason monsanto doesn’t advertise to the general public is that their customers are farmers and the farmers are aware of what they are buying and how the products came about.
            As far as examples of naturally occurring transgenic organisms, I only have 3 references but one is all that is needed to prove nature shuffles genes across the species barrier. Humans carry genes from potentially more than 100 bacterial genes. I thought that was pretty interesting. And the reason we don’t see any cat-dog hybrids isn’t due to “rules” set by nature. It is the result of the evolution of species. After a significant number of changes in a genome occur the organism becomes incompatible with it’s ancestors in a reproductive sense. Hybridization deals with this issue by a method called back breeding.
            I would disagree with you about aspertame as well (mostly anything in moderation is fine). Since when are cockroaches worried about diabetes or their waistline? ;-)

            Natural transgenics-

            Meadow grass






          • Excuse me? Journal staff is the peer review process? Don’t think so. And the remarkable coincidence of a ‘new’ editor with ties to Monsanto being hired just prior to the retraction? As to heavy criticisms….any idea how much criticism was lavished on Einstein’s Relativity theorem? and still is? See, it breaks down at the quantum mechanics level…. but still taught as gospel in schools…..

            And of course you have the 5 distinct string theories that finally, after 30 yrs, all fall into place with heavy gravity theory…..

            Now, you might think these are all unrelated… but the truth is they all have one thing in common. It took TIME to test, retest, experiment, recalculate and eventually come to a more acceptable THEORY. This is awesome in how peer review actually makes the science get better.

            HOWEVER, your argument about not being able to ‘prove safety’ holds no water. This is not a debatable requirement. it is LAW, not science. If they can’t PROVE then they should not sell, and legally CANNOT sell openly. It doesn’t matter that Monsanto’s primary customers are farmers. Far more than that are involved in disguising what is in our food on the shelves or in the livestock we buy. Tracking, segregating, and proper labeling are not these huge hurdles they are being made out to be. the addition of a few letters on a package is insignificant, especially compared to the funds being shoved into politician’s pockets to prevent it.

            And with your whopping 3 examples of transgenic organisms, you wish to say, yes it happens. Ok it does, in about 1/1000000th of a percent of all species of life on the planet. And yes there are still basic ‘rules in propagation in nature, not talking about mutations or mad scientists, gene count and compatibility is what keeps species separate for the most part (1 million times to one, probably more so). We’ve had more species go extinct last week than you can find examples of transgenics in the past 4 billion years. Perhaps there’s a lesson in that somewhere.

            Now is when you point at the miraculous solution that saved the banana crop from a horrid plague of bacterium. A heinous plague that would have taken bananas out of the common markets for years. My question is how did this plague start? it appeared so suddenly and just as quickly a solution was found. My guess is that both the infection and the solution are GMO products.

            As for your quip about roaches being worried about their waistline? not really sure you could call the joint between abdomen and thorax a ‘waist’ and of course that’s not what they worry about. What they recognize is that Aspartame is a poison, regardless of dosage. They recognize that this chemical remains in your tissues long after you have passed the bulk of the contents, it is residual, and has been linked to increased incidence of diabetes, disruption of gut flora, and loosely associated with increased cancer incidence and organ failure. The bugs are smart enough to avoid it entirely. On the other hand, most humans aren’t willing to grasp the concept that ‘calories in < calories out = weight loss' and that the healthy end of adjustment is the 'calories out' portion of the equation.

          • That line was supposed to read “The initial review and by the journal’s staff isn’t proof of validity of the paper” . I’m aware that peer review is done outside the employment of the journals.
            As far as the physics examples, there are many mathematically attractive and interesting theories in quantum mechanics that exist but the standard model is still going strong. It may still be a long time before we understand many of it’s aspects. I completely agree on testing theories.
            If you don’t agree with the idea that you can’t prove safety, then give me an example of something that was proven 100 percent safe. I think you’re missing the point that safety can only be practically established relative to something similar.
            As far as only having 3 transgenic examples- one is sufficient. It is evidence that there is no universal law against it. I’m not even sure how many examples there may be but perhaps no one is documenting this due to lack of importance.
            Your guess about the banana is little more that unsubstantiated conspiracy theory unless you have evidence to back it up. Back in the 50’s we all ate a different type which was wiped out by a similar plague (before there were GMOs).
            The bit about roaches was meant to be amusing (I guess I have to work on that). I was trying to steer the conversation towards a more friendly exchange. And I disagree about aspartame and dosage. With few exceptions the saying “the dose makes the poison” applies, certainly to aspartame.

          • something 100% safe for consumption by human beings… virtually anything can be made unsafe when taken out of naturally occurring circumstances; however, you miss the point, whether or not it can be done, it is a legal requirement that it be done. If any producer fails to prove safety, it is illegal.

            The requirement is posted on Monsanto’s own pages. Basically, the mandate says stop doing this stuff until you CAN prove safety. This is why the proliferation of GMO produce has been hidden, why distributors of these products that contain GMO products are so determined to prevent labeling. This is why farmers get blackmailed, threatened, or promised increased profits, depending on their position concerning GMO crops.

            Here’s the page at Monsanto: http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/biotech-protein-safety.aspx

          • just as your position is just pro biotech propaganda with no real studies to do what is required. Look at Monsanto’s own website, they are required to PROVE safety, not just guess that it’s close enough.

          • That is a false assumption Michael, the whole safety legislation against lead based paint should show you that, the removal of DDT as a common insecticide should show that also. Our govt sanctioned the use of dioxin as a defoliant was done despite knowing full well that it was toxic to more than just plants. GMOs of the vertical variety are nothing more than a profit driven scam at the expense of human safety.

          • Nothing can be proven “safe”. There is risk in everything. Relative risk is what is established as a guideline for safety.
            GMOS are not a “scam” by any stretch of the imagination. Their wide adoption and clear benefits thoroughly demonstrate that.

          • Because it is. Did you even read any of the articles? Almost every single one is about Pesticide/Herbicide toxicity. Yes pesticides are bad. The only interesting one is about GMO plant DNA is Human blood. And wait one second… They don’t even mention using GMO’s once in the paper.

            “The analysis of all the publicly available circulating cell-free DNA sequencing data of over 1000 human subjects confirms our hypothesis that the presence of foreign DNA in human plasma is not unusual.”

            It is all anti-GMO rhetoric and terrible science that is easily picked apart. Most Pro-GMO people like me are against Monsanto’s Pesticide Resistant GMOs.

          • All I know is if I eat a GMO food I get rashes, boils and itching, when I stay away from them the rashes, boils and itching goes away and it has been going on 4 years now. My immune system was ruined until I found out the truth!!!!!

          • “The truth,” eh? Tell us, Deb. What specific “GMO foods” did you eat that brought on these symptoms? GE is a process, not a food. But go ahead, tell us your story. What did you eat that you believe was a “GMO food” ? Inquiring and curious minds want to know.
            Boils, rashes, itching, and damage to your immune system. Hmmmmm. How very strange. So yes, exactly what foods did you eat that you think were “GMO foods” that you currently do not eat? Be specific.

          • Curious what you eat that you believe is GE. So you won’t say? I think you have no idea whatsoever what foods have been processed with GE grown ingredients, and are just making this up as speculative hippie woo. Otherwise you would actually and sincerely be interested, curious, and motivated to find out what is actually causing your boils, rashes, itches, and damage to your immune system. But you are uninterested, because you “know the truth.” Good. May you be boil-free, rash-free, itch-free, and immune-strong. Organic foods and non-GMO certified foods are made exactly for people just like you. Right up your alley. Enjoy.

          • Sorry that is completely false. I have spent hours pouring over papers and studies looking for evidence of horizontal transfer of GMO genes to Human micro flora.

            “Studies have shown the potential migration of proteins via the digestive process.”

            What proteins are you talking about here? Anyways of course we use the proteins from GMO foods, amino acids in proteins are the building blocks of every single protein in your body. Perhaps you meant DNA? Which is what I was referring to in the my first sentence. And there is no ‘good’ research about horizontal gene transfer from a GMO to even the bacteria in your stomach. Quotations around good because I have found lots of trash studies misrepresenting their sources to promote their own ideas.

          • Hello, do you mind if you could send a link of some of those papers if they’re online? Just a high school student who picked GMOs for a science project.

          • You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What is far more disturbing is that you appear to have no idea of just how ignorant you really are. NEWSFLASH. (just one of many examples) One GMO food on the market has a gene for BT toxin added to it, a protein that is both totally foreign to man and totally foreign to ANY foods ingested by man.

            While the effects of the BT protein are well known in the plant in which it NATURALLY occurs and in the insects which eat it (to which it is a poison the plant uses as a defense) we know NOTHING about what it does in man NOR DID WE TEST IT. We tested only the products that we EXPECT it to be broken down into in the digestive tract. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT is that there are many conditions in which individals cannot break down proteins that most of us can (celiac disease, lactose intolenace and a huge number of others). PLUS man has the highest level of genetic variation in enzymes that break down foods of almost any species (because we have evolved within virtually every environment on the face of the entire planet (except only Antartica) So there will inevitably be many peope than cannot break down BT toxin, so it goes into their lower digestive tract AS THE FULL TOXIN. And we haven’t tested to see what that would do.

            This is flat out criminal negligence. THe food industry and the GMO people DO NOT CARE as long as it happens to only a subset of people AND IF IT ISN’T ON THE LABEL THERE WILL BE NO WAY OF FIGURING OUT WHAT IT IS THAT IS MAKING THAT SUBSET OF PEOPLE SICK.

            It’s exactly the same situation as it was with tobacco. They DO NOT CARE IF THEY KILL EVEN MILLIONS OR 10’S OF MILLIONS OR PEOPLE, so long as they can avoid taking responsibility for it.

          • True but totally inapplicable and highly misleading. The critical difference is that previously BT as used as an external application. Now the plants are being genetically modified so that the toxin is present WITHIN THE PLANT where it cannot be washed off and there is no possibility of timing applications with regard to harvest or use only when an insect is actually a problem etc.. THe inevitable result will be that amounts people are exposed to will be vastly larger.

            FAR more serious is that once the plants are grown the gene will ineviatbly escape into the environment (Studies have shown that such genes can be spread thru pollen (and insect carriers etc) to similar crops or closely related plants in the wild many miles distant. And this gene would give plants a selective advantage over the wild types meaning it would inevitably become very common in closely related wild plants and then back into NON GMOed closely related crops.

            NOTE WELL

            The EPA does not require long-term studies because the protein’s
            instability in digestive fluids makes such studies meaningless in terms
            of consumer health ”
            Absolutely not true. This applies only to healthy people and only to those with the most common genetic variations. The are many health problems that cause marked deviation from normal levels of acidity and of relevant enzymes in the digestive tract.
            The EPA is playing “brain dead” here for the benefit of industry.

            “(8). In vitro digestion assays were used to confirm
            degradation characteristics of Bt proteins, whereas murine feeding
            studies were used to assess acute oral toxicity ”

            Mice are not humans and have very different natural diets and digestive enzymes. While such studies have the potential to provide warnings of possible toxicity they are not remotely sufficient to establish safety IN HUMANS

            There is a huge amount of genetic variation in enzymes used in digestion in homo sapiens, vastly more than in most species, because of our long evolution in every corner of the globe (with the sole exception of Antartica). THere are many such variations that cause otherwise normal humans to get adverse reactions from foods widely eaten (celiac disease and milk intolerance, for example) That’s not a problem when the individuals can just avoid the foods. BUt it BT genes are added to food crops they will BECAUSE THIS GENE CONFERS STRONG SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE (unlike, for example, the gluten in wheat and the lactose in milk) and will inevitably become widespread in an extensive range of food crops if it is allowed.

            This is wanton negligence “with full malice aforethought” in that is willfully ignores the well known problem of high genetic variations in food enzymes in humans.

            THE DANGER IS GREATLY EXACERBATED by the industry’s attempt to make labeling of GMO (or “non GMO”) illegal as it would very effectively obscure any problem that arose even if they were very serious and affected millions of people. (The problem with trans fats took many decades to surface despite that they were killing millions of people AND THEY WERE LABELED precisely because their use was so widespread, exactly at BT would inevitably become widespread in our food supply far beyond the level that the GMO’ed plant were used due to inevitable transfer of the gene to other food crops.

            Exactly as was done with nuclear power, the industry and government is controlling the discussion so that the areas of greatest danger are being ignored and a very false impression of safety is given to the public. But with GMO the danger is far greater. As devastating as Chernobyl and Fukishima were (it’s still highly dangerous to eat some animals even many thousands of miles from the location of the meltdowns) GMO plants, especially modifications like adding the BT gene, could be far worse. Because, unlike with Chernobyl and Fukishima, where the amount of material released, although staggeringly large, was still finite and limited, there is no meaningful quantitative limit on the spread of a gene, most especially, one conferring high selective advantage to an extensive range of plants, into the environment.

            The industry is not even comparing “apples to oranges” here, more like rocks (inanimate objects) to oranges (LIVING organisms) and the difference is hugely significant. They are willfully misleading the public exactly as they did with nuclear power (“Electricity will be too cheap to meter” , we have safe ways to store it (wrong repeated on every method attempted for over half a century and they STILL don’t have one), it is safe, no real danger of an accident, (In fact, due to many factors accidents are statistically inevitable, especially given with economics that reward industry for taking huge risks and fail to significantly penalize them for damages) as history has clearly shown.

          • Jim, you do not understand the mechanics of Bt. (Come on, this Google search below took me 10 seconds. Get responsible for your own education.)
            Bt does not affect the human gut the same way it does the insect gut. Read this university paper about Bt. Click on the side link about safety issues, and learn the difference between an insect gut and the human gut.
            Also, there are requirements for insect refuges (mandatory distances) for the specific type of insect that is being controlled, for each Bt crop. It is the Bt farmer’s responsibility to maintain these insect refuges.
            Your speculations of “inevitability” are just Fearmongering speculations, and are not based on fact.

          • The mandatory distances have already been proven to be worthless. Pollen can be carried by wind much longer distances, carried by bees and other insects and thru other mechanisms. And all it takes is one single transfer and the gene is out, with no way of ever “recalling it” Genes that have a powerful selective advantage for the plants they spread into will inevitably become widespread in the environment. THIS is by far the greatest danger that the industry studiously ignores and suppresses discussion of.

            Even with the very worst of nuclear accidents (Chernobyl, Fukishima) the AMOUNT of radioactive material is finite and limited (albeit massive with the two cited). But with releases of genes (spread thru pollen into related wild plants as well as non GMOed versions of the same crop) there is no such limit on the spread. If the gene has high “fitness” (as a BT gene likely would) it could remain in the environment and continue to cause problems indefinitely – tens of thousands of OUR generations, even long after we’ve gone extinct.

            THIS IS NOT A CONCERN with conventional plant breeding where the genes have to come from closely related species (because whatever related plants we move them to have already been exposed to them (at low levels) ever since they evolved without our “help”. But when we move genes from very distant species this is not remotely the case and there is huge potential for harm WHICH IS NOT REMOTELY BEING INVESTIGATED.

            These companies all know that, just a will past problems, under current politics, THEY will never be held responsible. THEY make the profit while WE pay the price. Why would they not take great risks under such gross misregulation and misenforcement? The fault is OURS for continuing to tolerate such outrageous abuses by corporations and governments.

          • Your argument makes perfect sense: a single grain of pollen might escape.

            But what exactly do you think is the most likely consequence—or even the worst-case scenario? What “powerful selective advantage” do you fear?

          • And there is absolutely no evidence that this fearful scenario has happened. All speculative. He forgets, however, that organic farmers have a responsibility to keep their weed and other crop pollens out of other farmers’ fields. His speculation is all based on science fiction “IF” scenarios.

          • **”The EPA does not require long-term studies because the protein’s
            instability in digestive fluids makes such studies meaningless in terms
            of consumer health “**

            What does the EPA have to do with this? Perhaps you meant a different govt entity.

            **” Now the plants are being genetically modified so that the toxin is present WITHIN THE PLANT “**

            In reference to BT, it is a toxin to specific larval invertebrates, not much else. To the rest of us, it is just another protein. Harmless when consumed along with the other proteins in the same food.

            **”FAR more serious is that once the plants are grown the gene will ineviatbly escape into the environment (Studies have shown that such genes can be spread thru pollen (and insect carriers etc) to similar crops or closely related plants in the wild many miles distant. And this gene would give plants a selective advantage over the wild types meaning it would inevitably become very common in closely related wild plants and then back into NON GMOed closely related crops.”**

            Genetically modified crops have been grown for decades. Where is the example that this has happened, and more importantly, what is the plausible scenario where a gm crop is capable of passing one specific gene (the one which scares you) uncontrollably into the environment. Also, why would this particular gene have a “selective advantage” ? Nearly everything a farmer plants won’t survive through a few generations without human assistance. Any wild plants growing nearby wouldn’t be compatible in a reproductive way.

          • You biology background is non existent (did you by any chance go to a charter or home school?) The gene causes production of BT toxin which is toxic to many insect pests that would otherwise attack the plants. The fact that even that flagrantly obvious connection escapes you demonstrates that you really have no idea what the discussion is about.

          • Of course I am. BUt using it ON a crop is massively different from inserting a GENE for it into the crop where it is ALWAYS present in every cell of the food (not merely on the surface which could be peeled, not merely used when there is an actual insect attack BUT MASSIVELY WORSE, the gene would inevitably spread into other, non GMOed (at least not INTENTIONALLY GMOed) crops and even other closely related food crops. And once spread, like Cane Toads and rabbits in Australia, there would be no way to get rid of it. IT would be a continuing problem for at least hundreds, quite possibly thousands of years.

            It appears that with every new level of technology the damage caused by disasters becomes ever more widespread and even longer lasting. Chernobyl spread contamination many thousands of miles away and even this much later certain animals are not safe to eat even many thousands of miles away. But that nothing compared to the worldwide spread and UNLIMITED time the damage from a GMO release could be.

            Were YOU aware that studies have shown that genes added by genetic modification can spread to related species in the wild tens of miles away from the crops? Were YOU aware that human genetic variability in food enzymes makes it almost certain that a significant number of people won’t be able to break down and detoxify the BT the way that the safety studies ASSUME (without testing) that they will?

            YOu are being presented a very biased set of information and apparently swallowing it whole without serious evaluation.

          • Jim — Before you launch into a diatribe about “…criminal negligence…”, perhaps you should check your facts.

            Neither celiac disease nor lactose intolerance involve an inability to digest proteins.

          • You are dead wrong about celiac disease where the genetic variation causes inability to break down gluten/gliaden (wheat proteins). You are technically right about lactose intolerance where it’s an inability to break down a sugar (lactose) rather than a protein (a minor slip on my part) but this point is meaningless because the basic point about individual genetic variations conferring vulnerability to problems from food constituents that do not affect most people still stands. Protein is just one of many food constituents that can be involved in such conditions. Sugars, starches, fats etc can be involved as well.

            Celiac disease involves an immune reaction to a protein that WOULD NOT BE THERE to cause a reaction unless an enzyme normally present that breaks it down was missing. So CD absolutely does involve an inability to digest a protein even thought the PROXIMATE cause of the problems is an immune reaction to it.

          • Hi Jim,
            I have worked in the field of gluten and celiac disease for a number of years, so I was surprised by your claim that the disease is caused by an enzyme deficiency, since this is totally contrary to the scientific research that I am aware of!

            I have seen this idea proposed on a number of “alternative medicine” websites (often sites that claim to offer their own miracle treatment), but have never seen any scientific literature to support the idea.

            Of course, it’s conceivable that I might have missed a recent critical paper that completely overturns the existing science, so please would you provide a link so that we can discuss this further. Thanks.