Biotech Gallery

Don Huber: Science still looking for Purdue professor’s GMO pathogen time bomb

Last Updated: July 29, 2017
Name
Don Huber
Birth_date
1935|03|19
Birth_place
Mesa, Arizona, USA
Residence
Idaho
Nationality
USA
Education
PhD
Occupation
Activist retired academic

Don M. Huber (born 1935) is a former Purdue University professor who goes on publicity tours sponsored by organic[1], alternative health[2] and anti-GMO interest groups[3] claiming glyphosate and herbicide tolerant GM crops are causing health problems in people and animals. He also claims he discovered years ago a novel pathogenic microbe caused by agricultural genetic engineering–a GMO time bomb that is wreaking havoc on humans and animals.

Huber maintains glyphosate and GMO herbicide tolerant crops are linked to human and animal health risks. He says animals fed GM crops are dying in record numbers and that their is a correlation between GM soy and GM corn with inflammatory bowel disease in humans in the United States. He alleges glyphosate is linked to alzheimer’s disease, gout, diabetes, Parkinson’s, allergies and fertility issues. To support his claims, he cites research by a Maharishi movement expert in yogic flying Jeffrey M. Smith and debunked activist researcher Gilles-Eric Séralini.[5]

Huber has collaborated with anti-GMO activist researchers Judy Carman and Jack Heinemann in support of anti-GMO claims sponsored by extreme organic and biodynamic food and farming products company president Howard Vlieger.

Career

  • Purdue University Department of Botany & Plant Pathology (1971-2002)
  • University of Idaho Cereal Pathologist (1965-1971)
  • U.S. Army Reserves Research (1957-1998) [4]

Education

  • PhD Plant Pathology Michigan State (1963)
  • M.S. Plant Pathology University of Idaho (1959)
  • B.S. Vocational Education, University of Idaho (1957)
  • Meridian High School (1953)

Criticisms

  • Use Facts to Make Glyphosate and Glyphosate Resistant Crop Decisions, by Bob Hartzler and Mike Owen, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State, February 2011. “Information presented recently (by Don Huber) on the Web and in seminars across the Midwest has portrayed devastating consequences due to the widespread use of glyphosate and glyphosate resistant crops. It is important to recognize that there is little data published in refereed journals to support these claims. Data that are available have been taken greatly out of context to support the accusations… Recently, Purdue University faculty members have responded to these claims and using peer-reviewed science, have refuted the statements made by Dr. Huber.”
  • Infecting through misinformation…a new kind of communication pathogen?, by Cami Ryan, PhD, Doc Cami Ryan blog, August 21, 2011. “Huber has absolutely NO peer-reviewed science backing his allegations of the connection between the so-called pathogen and synthetic herbicide… When asked about who pays/backs him, he responded by reviewing his history of research (academic life at Purdue). When asked about the scientific processes that purportedly support his allegations, Huber reverts back to why he sent Vilsack the letter in the first place. He never responds to Olson’s questions directly. In fact, he subverts them. Also, there are no references to peer-reviewed research/science to support Huber’s claims. This link that Huber alleges exists between this ‘pathogen’ and synthetic herbicides is extremely weak and based primarily on conjecture…
  • Some Thoughts About “Cred” and Don Huber, by Steve Savage, Applied Mythology, August 21, 2011. “Don ‘Hubers allegations about a mysterious new super-bug are being widely repeated even though they lack scientific or even practical confirmation’. There are credulous audiences in many “green” or “food movement” circles that are more than “ready to believe” Huber. The more extraordinary the claims, the more credibility they seem to carry for those groups. At the risk of offending my readers, this phenomenon is not limited to those with Monsantophobia. There are audiences that are credulous when it comes to the statements of a minority of scientists who doubt Climate Change or Evolution. There are audiences that are credulous when it comes to “revelations” about Obamas birthplace or religion. There are audiences that are credulous when it comes to “death panels,” “great Right Wing Conspiracies,” “Dirty Dozen Lists” or links between vaccines and autism… In time, it is likely that Dr. Huber’s claims will be fully debunked. Unfortunately, the credulous audiences who believe him now will probably never accept the findings of more traditionally credible sources…”
  • A Generous Offer to Dr. Huber – Turned Down, by Professor Kevin Folta, Illumination, November 13, 2013. “Huber has a pathogen he says causes massive human disease and plant death. He will not release it to the wider scientific community for further tests, even after eight years of no publications or any signs of progress. But he’ll jet set around the nation scaring people into believing his story. This should speak volumes. It did tonight, and in a room not usually warm to biotechnology. What I saw him do tonight was scare people for two hours with frightening slides, no controls, speculation, outright bogus claims, flawed logic and straight-up fear. Concerned heads around me nodded in acceptance, taking his authority as a credible source of information. I was so mad watching him misrepresent science and flat out spread misinformation to an interested audience. It stops here. I want to shine light on his false claims and starting with his pathogen is step one. I’m really angry about the distortion of science and the use of science to build fear.”
  • Don Huber, controversial activist scientist promoting mysterious GMO superbug scare, has no data, by Genetic Literacy Project, November 14, 2013. “One problem: there is not a shred of empirical evidence to back up his scare claims, no peer reviewed paper, and he has refused to make this ‘explosive’ data available to any other scientist in the world to confirm–or debunk. The mainstream consensus is that Huber has no data to back up his questionable claims–scientists at his former university have challenged him, writing that there is no evidence to support his allegations, but that’s not stopped activists from featuring Huber at events and promoting his patented scare talk on websites when there is no respectable scientists to engage him. In response to these wild claims, University of Florida scientist Kevin Folta has launched a petition at Change.org to demand that Huber either release his study material to the scientific community or stop misinformation.”
  • Deconstructing Don Huber – A Tale of Two Talks, by Organic farming advocate Rob Wallbridge, The Fanning Mill, January 10, 2014. “Huber intersperses, correlates, and extrapolates this valid data with information that has very little, if any, scientific value. He begins by noting that correlation does not equal causation, but then he’s off to the races with a blinding series of correlations, peppered with references to the results of a few real studies, to the point where most listeners lose track of the initial caveat… Huber also isn’t above using discredited science and non-science to bolster his claims and incite fear. The Seralini rat experiments and Carman/Vlieger pig study figure prominently in his presentation… Needless to say, there’s a great deal of skepticism in the scientific community. The claims he makes for this “entity” are simply not supported by our current understanding of the way the world works… To make matters worse, Huber has refused to share his data, the organism, or his methods for culturing the organism with the broader scientific community. He has published nothing about it that could be subject to peer review, and he’s not allowing other scientists access to the information they need to prove or disprove his hypothesis… Don’t be mistaken – whatever has lead him here, his current path is deceptive, misleading, and irresponsible. Unless and until he can stick to the science and offer solid evidence for his extreme claims, he must be called to account for the way he is scaring people, and his tour of terror must end.”
  • Are the Findings of Dr. Don Huber Alarming or Alarmist? – The Farmer’s Life, November 13, 2013. “The claims of Dr. Huber are quite exceptional, but he alledgedly discover this organism 8 years ago, but he seems to refuse to let anyone else in the scientific community help him tackle the issue… Huber is claiming something pretty spectacular, yet no one credible seems to back him up.”

Bibliography & Resources

Sample Publications

  • Huber, D. M. (2003). Bioterrorism against Agriculture. Idaho Home Security Intelligence Workshop, 12.
  • Huber, D. M. (2003). Agricultural Bioterrorism – Threat & Defense. National Workshop.
  • Evans, E. D. S. R., & Huber, D. M. (2003). Copper and Plant Disease. In Nutrient Management and Plant Disease (p. 12). St. Paul, MN: APS Press.
  • Huber, D. M. (in press). Magnesium and Plant Disease. In Nutrient Management and Plant Disease (p. 10). St. Paul, MN: APS Press.
  • Prabhu, N. K. F. S., & Huber, D. M. (in press). Potassium Nutrition and Plant Disease. In Nutrient Management and Plant Disease (p. 12). St. Paul, MN: APS Press.
  • Huber, D. M. (in press). Manganese and Plant Disease. In Nutrient Management of Plant Disease (p. 15). St. Paul, MN: APS Press.
  • Huber, D. M. (in press). Nitrogen and Plant Disease. In Nutrient Management of Plant Disease (p. 25). St. Paul, MN: APS Press.
  • Huber, D. M. (2003). Mangnaese-Glyphosate Interactions in Transgenic crops. Soybean Field Day.
  • Huber, D. M. (2003). Cultural Control of Take-all. Workshop on Take-all, 6.
  • Dodds, M. V. H. M., & Huber, D. M. (2002). Micronutrient uptake by isogenic glyphosate tolerant and normal corn.

Personal

Huber grew up on crop and dairy farms in Arizona and Idaho. Contact: [email protected]

References

  • agscienceliterate

    If he wishes to maintain any degree of credibility, Huber needs to engage fully with other scientists who want to look at his astonishingly unsubstantiated claims. I’ve heard him speak in a public setting about GE labeling, and he trotted out these same old arguments about the “dangers” of GE foods. As he is fully funded by organic and anti-GE groups, his disingenuous claims bear only the merest of scrutiny. Bona fide crop scientists shouldn’t waste their valuable time with him, and the burden of proof is on Huber to show that his claims are legit, and to be upfront about who is paying him to promote these ludicrous claims. I’m not holding my breath waiting. It pays a lot more to sell fear, and get paid handsomely for it, than to engage in meaningful scientific research.

    • Roy Williams

      There are very few people that understand or care about the scientific legitimacy of a speaker’s claims. Regardless of the subject, there is widespread rejection of any statements by “mainstream” science. Huber has no credibility with mainstream science, but since he is “counter-mainstream” and makes outlandish claims, the vast majority of his audiences believe every word he says. It is not just GMOs. We have seen this with climate change, nuclear energy, and the petroleum industry. The real challenge is how to get the public mindset focused back on the urgency of scientific research and technological advancement, such as we had in this country in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s during the early years of the “space race”.

      • Boulder7777

        Roy, that is true … still, the anti-GE activists and moneyed organic interests paid to ship him in to a public hearing in Boulder about 5 years ago. At that time the county commissioners didn’t go along with his nonsense, but several of the current county commissioners got elected on an activist agenda unfortunately, and aren’t as interested in mainstream science and are more apt to go along with his off-the-charts woo. A loss for everyone.

  • Dave Pennington

    I am skeptical of Dr Huber’s microbug theory. Without evidence it is simply not credible yet. His thoughts on how antibiotic chelators can screw up soil and human microbiomes seem quite sound. Each theory will stand or fall on its own merit, and the evidence for each must be weighed fairly.

    The fact that so many “GM experts” on this website and others simply refuse to present even a single long term safety study of a single GMO is very revealing. It looks like they don’t have ANY (as Dr Huber asserts) or they have so few it refutes the stories they have been telling about GMO safety.

    My asking for examples of these studies is perfectly consistent with evidence based science. They, on the other hand demand Dr. Huber’s evidence (rightly) but refuse to do the same when asked. That’s called hypocrisy, which isn’t terribly surprising from an anonymous troll like yourself, but Karl, Kevin and Jon have less of an excuse. You can insult me all you want but they can’t hide from the fact that the evidence for long term GMO safety testing is about as unsupported as Dr Huber’s microbug theory.

    • Roy Williams

      Exactly what would you consider to be a valid, acceptable long term study?
      What is your perspective on the fact that hundreds of millions of Americans have been eating food products derived from “GMO” crops for nearly 20 years?

      • Dave Pennington

        Hi Roy,
        Obviously people have been consuming GMOs for many years, but there are also many health problems which have increased and decreased in that time period. Proving any connection within a non-controlled study is impossible, since many other things also changed during that time period, and GMO/non-GMOs have never been labeled in the US until fairly recently.

        I am seeking peer reviewed long term safety data. Period. These would hopefully be mamallian feeding studies of perhaps two or more years. Once a listing is compiled the merits or limitations of any individual study can be argued. “Long term” to me means longer than the typical 90 day study which is so common but is obviously insufficient to prove long term safety. “Safety” means more than “performance” data such as carcass weight, milk produced etc. It has to say something about the health of the animal too.

        These two requirements should not be onerous.

        • Roy Williams

          Dave,

          Five generations, 1072 days of observation:

          http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOPSJ-3-49
          Beyond that, consider the performance of the U.S. Dairy Cow herd over the last twenty years.
          All dairy cows except those in organic programs are fed GMO grain. Since 1995 the production per cow has increased from approximately 1800 gallons per year to almost 3000 gallons per year. In contrast, cows on organic programs produce about 1500 gallons per year. No, that is not a “controlled study”. If you are a frequent reader of the Journal of Dairy Science, you see that the effects of feed on the health and performance of dairy cows is constantly being studied and reviewed by dairy scientists world wide. Beyond that, dairy farms that are milking many thousands of cows pay professional nutritionists to constantly monitor and adjust the feeding program for their cows, based on laboratory evaluations of the nutrient content of the available feed. (No human “foodie” or “health freak” gets even 1% as much science and analysis applied to their food!) With hundreds of scientists and nutritionists analyzing the performance of tens of millions of cows over the last 40 years, there has never been any indication whatsoever that GMO grains have any negative impact on dairy cows.
          The fact that organic program cows milk so much less than conventional cows is due to many factors, depending on which organic dairy farmer you talk to, and there are probably some organic dairies that do much better than others. Generally, organic dairy farms have fewer cows than conventional farms, and cannot afford to pay for the services of a professional nutritionist, nor can they obtain the wider variety of feeds that are available to conventional farms. It all adds up to cows on smaller farms being fed a lower quality diet than cows on larger farms, in most cases.
          If I wanted to bash organic production, the results of dairy cow production would be a tempting excuse, but that would not be correct. However, if feeding GMO grains to dairy cows had any negative impact on production, I am 100% confident that the such an effect would long ago have been identified by dairy farmers and their alert nutritionists, as well as by the hundreds of scientists world-wide who study dairy cow nutrition. It is a way more convincing statement about the safety of GMO grains to me than any small “controlled study” would be. It would be really good if we understood 1% as much about human nutrition as we do about dairy cow nutrition!

          • Dave Pennington

            thanks for the link on the mouse study. Its long term, but rather limited on which health effects were studied.

            The data on milk production is great too, and I am sure the dairies care about their cow’s production of milk. They also shot them up with RBST. The story of how Monsanto dealt with that issue is legendary.

          • Roy Williams

            Dave,
            rBST can induce about a 5% to 10% increase in milk production over one lactation (one year’s time). I worked in some large dairy barns – 4000+ cows. They were given rBST. All the hype about rBST negatively affecting the cows is completely false. Giving rBST involves some extra record keeping and a little extra labor. (And it is not free). But even with the discount (50 cents per hundred weight of milk) given by the processor for rBST milk, it was still more profitable to give rBST than to not give it. Personally, I have a pretty good understanding of the biochemistry involved both in the cow and in us when we drink milk from rBST treated cows, and I have no problem with it. In fact, since I have seen the improvement in feed efficiency using rBST, I will buy milk that is NOT labeled “no artificial hormones” when I can find it – my small economic vote for more efficient agriculture with less environmental impact.
            Back to the long term studies – check back here tomorrow – I’ll see what else I can find.

          • Dave Pennington

            rBST is prohibited in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and in the 27 countries of the European Union.

            According to the American Cancer Society rBGH can cause adverse health effects in cows and evidence for potential harm to humans is inconclusive. More research is needed.
            and
            The increased use of antibiotics to treat rBGH-induced mastitis does promote the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

            The risk is on us, the profits go to the dairies. Same story, different GMO.

            http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/intro.asp

            http://www.ewg.org/research/anniston-alabama-depth/story-monsanto

          • Roy Williams

            Dave,

            rBST does NOT cause an increase in mastitis. That is my personal observation, working on dairy farms milking 4000+ cows. Unfortunately, early in the commercialization of rBST, some farmers who were not doing a good job of taking care of their cows tried to substitute rBST for good husbandry, and failed. They, and early detractors of rBST blamed their failure on rBST. If you are not feeding your cows well, and keeping them in a low-stress, no-surprise environment, then yes, rBST is not going to help, and can make your situation worse. But on any modern dairy that is utilizing professional veterinary and nutritional consultants, rBST is a good thing. If your dairy is not up to par, then rBST is not for you. Thus, the “mixed results” on the effectiveness and the effects of rBST.

            NOTE, rBST is NOT a GMO! It is a chemical produced by bacterial that are genetically modified. Pretty much the same process as the production of insulin.

            This is a link to a webpage that pretty much sums up the dairy science of rBST:
            http://animalsmart.org/feeding-the-world/food-safety/rbst

          • Dave Pennington

            I’m not going to debate BGH anecdotes. Monsanto did their usual bullshit, and were busted.

            “Monsanto and the FDA have chosen to suppress and manipulate animal health test data in efforts to approve commercial use of rBGH”.

            “Evidence of these toxic effects was first detailed in confidential Monsanto reports, based on records of secret nationwide rBGH veterinary trials, submitted to the FDA prior to October 1989”

            http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0059/07p-0059-sup0001-02-vol1.pdf

          • Wackes Seppi

            What has Monsanto to do in this conversation?

          • Roy Williams

            Monsanto was marketing Posilac after they acquired a license to rBST. They sold their rights in 2008 to Ely Lilly. rBST was not developed by Monsanto. Monsanto was one of several companies that acquired a license from the developer, Genetech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

          • Dave Pennington

            Monsanto threatened Fox for (almost) airing the expose on Posilac, and then Fox went on to argue (successfully) that the news can be lies. Literally.

            Not sure which is worse Fox or Monsanto.

          • Roy Williams

            Dave, that’s nice, but it certainly in no way convinces me as to who is right or wrong. While the reporters cast the dispute as one of “cover up” v. “truth”, we are only hearing one side of the argument in this video. Without being able to hear the other two sides of the case, I am withholding judgment. Just because two reporters make a claim does not mean it is automatically mean that claim is true.
            As I said, I have a pretty good understanding of the relevant biology, and I am not in the least bit concerned about milk from rBST cows, and I think that the anti-rBST activism has resulted in long-term negative impacts for the environmental footprint of agriculture, with no benefits to human health.
            This is another one of many issues where genetic engineering would be of great benefit: a genetic change to bovines that would result in the same effect as rBST injections. Another great improvement would be the deletion of the genetic basis for horns. There is no reason not to develop these changes in dairy cows. Dave, I am guessing you would oppose these genetic modifications. Under what circumstances would you accept them?

          • Dave Pennington

            I am willing to accept GMOs as long as they pass long term toxicology tests using independent labs. Let’s say two year rodent studies. Is that not fair? There are few if any which have been tested more than 90 day industry studies. The data from these tests must be open to scrutiny by all, unlike the trade secret Monsanto studies which you don’t care about.

          • adam

            Dave, considering we’ve been eating GMOs, which are more rigorously tested than conventional, for a little over 20 years with no health issues between humans or animals, I’d have to say long-term toxicology tests at this time are pointless.

            Data from all the test are open to all. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies out there and they all say the same thing; GMOs are as safe as conventional.

            At this point in time, anyone who claims different is just fear mongering or is ignorant to the facts.

          • Dave Pennington

            Since new GMOs can have new issues, each needs to be tested before they are approved. Your statement that “no health issues” have been observed is industry propaganda.

            There are thousands of studies, but there are very few long term safety studies. Many of them were performed by the industry and sealed (until FOIAs forced their release).

            “Data from all the test [sic] are open to all” is not true. They provide
            some data, this is true. But the actual data from the studies is
            usually unavailable.

            There have been numerous safety studies which identified potential health issues from GMOs and their related chemicals. If you look in the GENERA database and filter for “safety” with “mixed” results you will see some of them. These studies need to be repeated to see if more can be learned about the issue, but companies like Monsanto would rather use the public for lab animals in these “uncontrolled GMO studies” just as they have done for a long time with other types of chemicals and patented organisms.

            Occasionally they get in “big” trouble for this practice but they rarely lose more than a small percentage of their profits even if they kill or injure large numbers of people. As long as they donate enough money to the right parties and keep their top lobbyists inside the regulatory agencies, they have little to fear. Their CEOs never go to prison.

            To keep this game going on they sponsor effective propaganda so people like you will oppose the testing regimes which might catch them in the act.

          • Farmer Sue

            Each new GE crop is rigorously tested before approval. You didn’t know that, really?

            Yet, isn’t it odd that organic and other non-GE foods produced through mutagenesis get zero testing? Hmmmm. And zero comments from you about that.

          • Dave Pennington

            I am familiar with the testing process it is voluntary, and definitely not what I would call vigorous. 90 day tests are called “sub chronic” for a reason.

            If this was a site promoting radioactive or chemical mutagenesis I would ask the same question, but it isn’t. You are promoting GMOs.

            So, “Farmer Sue” can you point to a single long term safety study? If all are so rigorously tested this should be a simple matter. I have found only a few long term (>90 day) studies so far. I think I have have seen what is in the GENERA database, although it isn’t designed to allow anyone to filter by study duration. Last time I checked (with the help of Karl, who vanished thereafter) there were less than 17.

            Thanks

          • adam

            NOT industry propaganda…simple observation. If you can’t see that for yourself you are delusional.
            Not only that, but since you have no data (not even bad data, which is what you probably are looking at if anything) to back up your claims I, nor anyone with a shred of intelligence, can take you seriously.

            So back it up or shut up, Dave.

          • Dave Pennington

            see http://genera.biofortified.org/search_results.php?query=%5Bsafeconsume=mixed%5D

            The 14 studies listed show “mixed” safety results (negative health effects were observed in the experimental group). In an honest industry, this would indicate a need for further study. In any event your BS about no adverse health effects observed ever is industry propaganda.

            Now YOU can either put up or shut up: Find one long term safety study of GMOs. Must be a feeding study longer than 90 days, not just a performance study. If as you say there are thousands of studies and GMOs are 100% safe, long term safety studies should be reasonably plentiful.

            I was working with Karl Haro von Mogel, trying to see how many might be in the GENERA database, but I think he doesn’t want to know for some reason. Maybe it’s because his industry is claiming that many exist and the reality is far from that. The GENERA database can’t be searched by study duration (!) but he came up with a tentative list of only 23, and at least 25% of them didn’t even fit the most basic criteria possible. The rest may not either, I need to finish the review. In any event the number is either small or zero.

            Put up or shut up adam. All it needs to be is longer than 90 days, and about animal health (eating GMO feed).

          • adam

            Why find any at all? There aren’t any on conventional plants with hit and miss breeding methods, why should there be for GMOs? Not that you care if I were to find a test…your narrative requires me to fail, so you’ll find a way to disqualify the result.

            OK, here’s a little test for you, budro…find a long-term safety study on a non-GMO. I mean, what’s good for the gander is good for the goose, right? I don’t believe it’s necessary for GMOs (since we’ve been eating them directly or indirectly for over 20 years) but if it is then surely it is out there for conventionally-breed plants as well.

            Oh, and by the way, I don’t need to put up or shut up…you still have absolutely no data to back you claims up. The ball hasn’t even left your court and you tried to double-down. I’m sure you’ll do it again, with similar results.

          • agscienceliterate

            Adam, your reasonable request to these activists to show similar studies of “safety” (to what degree? 100%?) or “no harm” will go unanswered. Since there is no scientific and credible way to show that any X is “safe,” (one can only show, as the studies have, that it is improbable that they cause harm), it is a fool’s errand this guy is on, but we both know it is one just intended to sidestep the real issue: That millions of animals and people have shown NO negative effects of eating GE foods or feed, over almost two decades.

            That fact frustrates the heck out of the activists, so they take pot shots at the studies, saying they’re not “good enough” for them, or they allege that certain health conditions are increasing (spoeculative) and leap to the erroneous conclusion that GE foods and feed must be the reason. It’s trolling for a response. Let him fund his own laughable study and see who wants to take it on.

            I think he’s showing his defensiveness and empty bucket of arguments, saying you should either put up or shut up. You shouldn’t. Yours is one of the voices of reason, and I appreciate your comments and suggestions.

          • adam

            Thank you for your kind words, agscienceliterate. I really don’t feel Dave Pennington is an activist, they usually have their shit a little more put together.

            I think he is more than likely ignorant. In his ignorance he’s looked and found all these great, incorrect, misleading, and daft sources that put him on the wrong track. I like to challenge these types since they can’t back anything up, as evidenced above. If nothing else, maybe someone later on comes on this thread who is themselves ignorant and can (hopefully) come up to the correct conclusion.

            Then again, he very well could be a bad activist. There does seem to be more of them in the vocal minority than not.

            Have a great day!

          • agscienceliterate

            Dave, since you have a singular and bizarre idea that only a study done in accordance with your own specific (and scientifically highly questionable) parameters would be meaningful, why don’t you go out and do crowdfunding, or approach a research university, or dig into your trust fund and fund your own study. You won’t be satisfied with anything else obviously. Your anti-corporate paranoia will not be satisfied unless you do that, so you should do that. We will be amused while we await your findings.

          • Dave Pennington

            more troll nonsense. I will be helping others as they open the studies which the industry is hiding, obviously if they showed that GMOs were safe they would not hide the data.

          • agscienceliterate

            Well, I’m sure your insightful help will be most appreciated. And meanwhile, I’m sure you can find someone to do a study that will meet your curious criteria. Regarding your anti-corporate, anti-industry conspiracy theories — not much anyone can do about that. As I said before, we will be amused while we await your findings.

          • Dave Pennington

            Like I said Monsanto already ran the study. Do you think they should keep hiding the data or release it? Can’t be too many trade secrets left its about 30 years old.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            What a rare and exciting coincidence! We have not only Don Huber’s missing superbug to locate but now, according to our main man Dave here, Monsanto’s long-missing study to be resurrected also. Simply amazing insight Dave! Both items being nefariously hidden from us and a keen sleuth like you has failed to frogmarch either one into the light of day? What do you want to bet neither exists – not Huber’s devious superbug and not Monsanto’s GMO-damning research, cuz, you just have to know both are merely a figment of a very lively and very impaired imagination. Shuffle on along now, Dave, and dig up those missing proofs — in the meantime we will all be basking in the sedate sanity we’ve been deprived of while you’ve been wasting valuable dredging time sparring with us here. Don’t come back empty-handed Dave.

          • adam

            Why should he NOT come back empty-handed…that’s all he’s had the whole time! Sad, but also kind of amusing how he keeps going to the sad, same arguments without proof.

          • Farmer Sue

            Adam, because he can’t find these studies, or more likely can’t understand them, this somehow becomes our problem to explain to him. Over and over and over again.

            Of course he’s just fearmongering. And ignorance is a requisite to fearmongering. It’s just trolling, for his own ego satisfaction. Ick.

          • Cliff

            Dave, what makes you think the preponderance of laboratory rodents have not routinely been fed from GMO feedstocks for the past decade or longer in practically every field of study?

            People, I am confident if a 2 year study is completed Dave will only move the goalposts, next require a 5 year study, then a 20 year study, and so on. Then will gripe critical health/performance nuances were not measured. Then the sticking point will be it was rodents and not humans (and of course you cannot ethically study this with human subjects) And through all of these 25+ years of pandering research, GMO foods still will not have killed Dave (or anyone else), any more than they have during the past 25 years.

            Dave needs to mistrust technology and boycott it for himself without scare mongering. Wasting our time and his own. Barney Frank said it: “…like arguing with a dining room table”.

          • Dave Pennington

            Hi Cliff,
            Obviously many lab animals eat GMOs. In order to prove any new organism is safe to consume, scientists use “controlled studies”. (you can look that one up)

            The fact that biotech firms only run their toxicology studies for 90 days is a clue to the question at hand. The fact that very few if any long term safety tests are actually available, despite claims to the contrary, is another.

            Feel free to make up stories about all who ask to see the long term safety data on GMOs and agricultural chemicals, doing so helps underline the fact that it is missing.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Dave, if you’re gonna run a controlled study you at least ought to know what what the hell you’re looking for. What you are demanding is a “long term” witch hunt. Why is that any more satisfying than a 90 day witch hunt? Same as demanding the doctor “just test for everything” expecting to discover the silver bullet. Not very scientific Dave, not convincing at all.

          • Dave Pennington

            Long term toxicology studies are not “witch hunts”.

            The data to be recorded is determined beforehand, of course.

            See Hayes’ Principles and Methods of Toxicology
            http://tinyurl.com/q4u8jd5

          • Farmer Sue

            Farmer with a Dell, wouldn’t it be nice if Dave would actually talk to a farmer? Call up his local farm bureau and ask questions? About all kinds of myths he’s stuck to, like “dousing” our fields with toxic poisons, farmers committing suicide (strange how these alleged farmer suicides only occur in India, where Indian activist Vandana Shiva preaches and makes up lies), where cattle and pigs are dying from GE feed.

            Wouldn’t it be nice if he’d get off his computer and picked up his phone and called his local Farm Bureau and educated himself?

            Yes, of course it’s a witch hunt. One that is incredibly disrespectful to farmers as well as consumers. The urban yuppie elite.

          • Farmer Sue

            Yes, Cliff — Science according to Dave. Yes, he is part of an activist group that needs to have a certain predetermined outcome, to justify their shaky political stance, regardless of the science, which will never be good enough for him. No goalposts at all except ideological.

            Love that quote, “Like arguing with a dining room table.” When a mind is slammed shut from the inside, only the person inside that mind can choose to open the mind. It’s a choice.
            We know he will never trust a scientist. He will never talk to a farmer. he will just keep on throwing out tired old activist myths. And we will keep on feeding him — food, and ideas. What a country.

          • agscienceliterate

            Dave, give it up. Don’t accept GE technology. Eat organic. Eat non-gmo verified. Carry protest signs about evil biotech corporations. Post on Food Babe’s site, where you will be very welcomed. Contribute to Vandana Shiva’s speaking charges of $40,000 per speech so she can spread more lies about farmer suicides in India. (why just India? Why don’t farmers in other GE countries also commit an unusual high number of suicides, if she’s correct?) You will never accept GE foods, and you know it. And we know it. That’s fine. There are plenty of us who do, quite happily. So?

          • Dave Pennington

            Hi anonymous troll/sock puppet,

            Thank you for posting more proof that you have nothing but bluff and bluster. The GE fraud you defend so poorly is hopefully coming to an end soon, in part because people like you cannot point to any relevant facts that show GMOs are actually safe to consume. You can smear anyone you want, so all you do is hit and run nonsense like the above.

            I already said if long term testing was conducted in an open and fair way I would accept GMOs. You dismiss that without any proof, without anything but your anonymous opinion, which will tell any fair reader a lot about your credibility. Of course the other trolls will agree with you but that won’t help. I have engaged Dr Haro von Mogel, he also failed to answer my very simple question. He fled, leaving me to the trolls and sock puppets like you who infest this website.

            This site is a fraud. The admin edited my post after I called them out for posting Dr Huber’s personal information including his wife’s full name, the number of kids they have, their home address and phone number. They deleted others for the same reason. They are afraid that their tactics will be seen for what they are, bullies just like you. You may be the same people.

            BTW you may be interested to know that I actually don’t pin India’s suicide problem on GMOs, I put it more on the Indian system of paying death benefits to the families of people who commit suicide, and their corrupt government which doesn’t handle crop failure payments fairly. Once again you are wrong. The casual reader can see who is being fair, assuming the site admin doesn’t edit my post again or simply delete it.

          • agscienceliterate

            I am anonymous for a reason, and do not need to justify that to you. I am delighted to not only be called a troll, and a shill, but now I can add “sock puppet” to my resume. Terms that people who have nothing throw out, in desperate frustrastion. You cannot possibly grasp that I might just endorse current GE technology on its own merits, and that I am not anti-corporation or anti-industry. Too hard to wrap your mind around, so I understand why you lash out in incomprehension, astonishment, and rage that others do not view this technology with the same suspician that you do.

            You obviously have your own Dave-criteria for what kinds of tests will pass muster with your reasoning– fine. I’m sure you can find people to do a study that will pass your rigorous criteria. I’ll even contribute a dollar. The rest of us sock puppets know full well that no study will ever get you to accept GE technology. Not that we care if you do or don’t; the success of the industry doesn’t rely on Dave’s acceptance, believe it or not.

            GE crops and feed have been found to be safe in thousands of studies that you continue to ignore. Whatever. That is your choice, too. Your dismissal of evidence does not make that evidence any less credible.

            And if this site is such a fraud, you are certainly welcome to not waste your valuable time, and to not post here, and instead to go to a site you feel is more legit, like the Food Babe’s. Or the Guardian. Or the Center for Food Safety. Or Benbrook’s site. Or Jeffrey Smith’s site. You will get lots of “likes” there. Here? Probably not so many. But then, it’s because we are all ignorant sock puppets.

          • Dave Pennington

            Anyone with 6th grade reading skills can see that I am skeptical of the microbug theory, and I am not saying it is proven yet that Samsel has Monsanto’s toxicology data. I do know the studies he references are on file at the EPA, marked “unpublished”. I guess we will see what happens on both accounts. Meanwhile you and so many other trolls here (it has gotten thick lately) are absolutely certain that neither exists, and say so without proof, so my conditional response is contrasted with that of the zealots.

            Here’s a missing item: Long term GMO safety studies. You say:

            “GE crops and feed have been found to be safe in thousands of studies”

            And therein lies the rub. There are actually very few long term safety studies. You know the actual list is pathetic, not unlike your attempts to evade the question. And unless you rewrite the basic tenets of toxicology to call subchronic studies long term safety studies, its obvious that you are simply lying, so you resort to a barrage of name calling and bluster.

            The reader is educated by your failure and I thank you for showing them what passes for arguments here at the GLP.

          • agscienceliterate

            Baloney. You’ve been shown the links to long-term studies over and over. Any 6th grader could find what you’ve been sent. You just don’t want to read them, or can’t understand them, and you can’t acknowledge that you may be wrong. You are throwing all your cards into the Samsel info, in some conspiracy theory that this info is unavailable or “hidden.” And you call other people zealots! And all you can do is shout out “troll” which is pretty pathetic. Give it up.

          • agscienceliterate

            Actually, Dave, I’m done. Anyone who can do no more than throw out troll, shill, and sock puppet allegations doesn’t deserve anything but contempt.

          • Cairenn Day

            I am not a Fox viewer/supporter, but the reporters were LYING and Fox was in the right to fire them. I did take the time to look into this story.

            Fox did not argue that ‘news can be lies’ In fact the argued just the opposite!

          • Dave Pennington

            Wrong. They threw out her claim on the basis that there is no rule against distortion:

            “Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute.”

            http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1310807.html#sthash.2UYYfEtM.dpuf

          • Roy Williams

            If I follow this correctly, the reporter was trying to claim protection under the whistleblower act, and the court ultimately said that the provisions of the whistleblower act did not apply here, since no law was violated. The video did not suggest that the reporters were claiming that they were illegally terminated, per se. They were trying to claim employer wrong-doing that would justify their claim for whistleblower status.

          • Dave Pennington

            It’s an interesting case. The FCC policy against distortion is not even a rule, much less a law. It’s a “policy” whatever that’s worth. Fox* had to argue that case, and they eventually got a judge to agree. They can now make stuff up, and make reporters change their stories if they want, without any worries about having to pay serious fines. Their advertisers will appreciate it even if we don’t.

            *Fair and balanced, just not terribly accurate.

          • Roy Williams

            I agree that inaccurate “news” is at a minimum aggravating, and at worst a public danger. But I don’t see any alternative: we certainly don’t want *the government* deciding what is news and what is not news – or deciding what is “accurate” and what is “not accurate” – that is how totalitarian states maintain control (e.g. North Korea).

          • Dave Pennington

            roger that
            Somehow the government has to be kept in check, that’s what the press is supposed to be doing (its job is to keep people informed, who must step up when necessary to check the government when it oversteps its legal limits). There probably is no way to enforce a law against news distortion.

            Now that we have independent information streams its often possible to see the way the government has lied to us, that is actually what makes me keep pressing for long term safety test data. The FDA lied to us, and actually broke the law when it allowed GMOs to have GRAS status over the objections of its own scientists. This was proven by the efforts of Dr Druker who forced the FDA to cough up about 44,000 pages of internal documents. Eventually a judge made a very curious ruling allowing the current situation to continue. The story on that legal case is in this interview:

            http://foodintegritynow.org/2015/08/25/altered-genes-twisted-truth-the-fdas-illegal-release-of-ge-foods/

          • Roy Williams

            Unfortunately, we are being increasingly ruled by the tyranny of anti-science. Drucker is, of course, free to publish his book, just as Fox news is free to air whatever stories they want. In any complex case, anyone can cherry-pick data to support whatever position they wish to take. While you believe that Drucker presents an accurate picture of bioenginieering, I, and the vast majority of the scientific community and many public leaders do not agree with the conclusions Drucker is arguing for. I have personally discussed the GMO issue with two current presidential candidates, and both of them expressed strong support for GMO-derived food, and the further development of GMOs, so it not just the scientific community that is pro-GMO. Mixed into this argument is the substantial funding by for-profit interests on both sides of the question. Drucker is a lawyer, and he makes a living by weaving a case out of threads. Because negative statements of any kind almost always trump positive statements, he is almost certainly going to convince some readers that he has an “airtight” case against GMOs.
            My position is that individuals and advocacy organizations like Drucker and foodintegritynow are of far greater concern than Fox news, because those individuals and organizations are claiming wrong doing by the government, which leads many people believe everything they say. This adherence to “we know best” rhetoric is pretty scary. I don’t want the government deciding what is “truth”, but I really don’t like the public discourse to be dominated by a few very well-funded anti-science activists that resort to intimidation of individuals who do not agree with them.
            Drucker did the same thing to the FDA that is being done now to numerous scientists at public universities: through FOIA, obtain so much material that there will be a very high probability that something can be found to discredit them.
            Remember, it was Drucker’s conclusion that the law had been broken. He is a good lawyer, and he put together a case to support is position. But this is like a courtroom with only one side, and a jury picked by that one side.

          • Dave Pennington

            Monsanto has been challenged to rebut his argument, which is based on objective facts and documents. They have so far refused to answer, I hope they will do so but the one-sided discussion is not his fault.

            Its true the public, especially conservatives, are often anti-science. Many think the earth is 6,000 yrs old. Your assertion of “anti-science” against Druker indicates that you haven’t read his argument or checked the facts he references.

            I think GMO proponents are anti-science if they refuse to supply scientific data. Meanwwhile they’re asserting that the supposed lack of health problems in the general public somehow proves GMOs are safe. It’s a very simplistic argument, and any scientist who made it would be laughed at by their peers. The general public might buy it to some degree, but it isn’t a scientific argument, it is propaganda.

          • Roy Williams

            Drucker clearly spent a lot of effort putting together his book; it will take quite a bit of work to write a full rebuttal. He has a several year head-start on any arguments. It would be pointless for Monsanto to try to refute Drucker. If you buy what Drucker says, there is no way that anything that Monsanto says would change your mind.
            I have read large sections of Drucker’s book, particularly the sections were he focuses on biology. He starts with some basic biology that he mostly gets right, However, he colors his presentation from the underlying dogma that genetic engineering is not natural, and therefore per se bad. He repeatedly implies that there is an underlying conspiracy within the scientific community to promote a known evil, dangerous process. The overall presentation he makes regarding the science and the process of discovery and development of genetic engineering is just plain fiction. Does he really believe that people who devote their careers and their lives to the goal of improving the lives of people everywhere are really as nefarious as he paints them to be? Sorry, but I’m not buying any of it. As one who is deeply involved in biomedical research – and nearly all biomedical research involves genetic engineering almost continually – I find his characterization of the motivations of the people involved, and of the process itself to be baseless fiction.
            Since you brought it up, I will ask some of my colleagues and collaborators what they think is the scientific significance (or not) of the fact that many people and many animals have been eating genetically modified plants for many years relative to the question of GMO safety.

          • RobertWager

            Here is a good review Dave (sorry for font issues but its off a PPT slide)

            Review

            Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding
            trials:

            Chelsea Snell, et al.
            }a
            b s t r a c t

            }The
            aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of
            diets containing GM maize,

            }potato,
            soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We
            examined 12
            long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies
            (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced
            the 90-day studies on GM feed for which
            long-term or multigenerational study data were available.
            Many parameters have been examined using
            biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific
            organs, hematology and the detection of
            transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been
            considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards
            and, in general,
            there were no statistically significant
            differences within parameters observed.
            However, some small
            differences were observed, though these fell within
            the normal variation range of the considered parameter
            and thus had no biological or toxicological
            significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed
            in rodents, according to the OECD Test
            Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate
            the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to
            show that GM
            plants are nutritionally
            equivalent to
            their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and
            feed.

            }

            }Food
            and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 1134–1148

          • Dave Pennington

            I have examined the Snell review, and will do so again on your recommendation. Is that the best evidence of long term GMO safety studies? Thanks for your time, BTW. It’s good to talk with a real player, not just another GLP sock puppet/troll.

          • Dave Pennington

            The full Snell review is not available, but it is dissected in a few places. The following is based on the Snell abstract and those reports:

            Snell includes 35 and 48 day chicken feeding studies which only measured a few performance issues. These are long term? About safety? Cardboard, sand and chicken fat were added to the control feed in one Snell-approved study, but they reject other studies for not using non-GM isogenic feed (which Monsanto tightly controls).

            IMO the review is further confirmation that long term safety data is scarce and GMO proponents are desperate to make it look like their products are fully tested. I find it interesting that experts like you think this review is very credible.

            QUESTION: What did they mean when they said “We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available.”? Please explain if possible.

            They also say a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents can be considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed.

            Do you think this is a true statement? I can think of innumerable counter-examples using low level toxin exposure. A 90 day study would miss PLENTY of toxins. That’s why we have long term testing!

          • Cairenn Day

            Very few dairies use rBST now. And there is STILL no data that rBST is harmful to humans.

            Dairies care more about the health of their cows than you seem to think. Many of them have spent to money to outfit each cow, with a bovine version of a fitbit, that monitors her temperature, how much she is grazing/eating/moving around and even how much time she spends chewing her cud. That way they can remove a cow from production before she is showing any noticeable health issues.

          • Farmer Sue

            Also, you’d think the cattlemen and other livestock farmers would have noticed their animals getting sick and dying. If that were the case, they would be the first people you’d hear from on this issue. Which, of course, has not happened. And major livestock organizations around the country have been opposed to labeling and have happily fed their stock GE feed. These urban activists with no knowledge or interest in GE crops and feed must think farmers and cattlemen are just plain stupid.

          • Not only that Sue, but you’d think European farmers who rely predominantly on GMO feed imports from America would have noticed by now if there were any negative effects to using GMO feed. And they have not.

          • Secret Farmer

            Haha, I am sorry but.. Follow the money honey. It’s hard to see the truth if it impacts your livelihood. Using chemicals to increase profits and subscription seeds has many farmers on the needle waiting for their next fix. Increasing profits is the true motive.. Bahahaha.

          • Great points!
            One thing to add, American organic dairymen IMPORT most of their grain feed. As such, it is not of the best quality since organic certification is more important than the nutritional content of the feed.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Excellent comment.

            I don’t think anyone–and I mean anyone, farmer or not–realizes the scrutiny dairy cows get on a daily basis unless they are somehow involved in the dairy herd side of the dairy industry.

            The feed, health, reproduction and milk are tracked and analyzed on a daily basis.

            We literally found that we could see a difference because of which side of tne road the feed was grown on.

            Nothing is blindly accepted without a trial, including GMO’s years ago.

    • Farmer Sue

      Thousands of safety studies. Which are accessible through links on this site and which you have been told about many times, Dave. You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

      • Dave Pennington

        Thousands! LOL. Where? They must be long term safety studies (you CAN read, I assume) How come GENERA doesn’t show them? The fact is these studies are rare at best. There are LOTS of short term, performance, and non-mamallian species studies. Long term mamallian toxicology (safety) studies? Not so much. Ask Karl. You are either ignorant or trying to be deceptive.

      • Cullen Bond

        Did Monsanto and friends wright your studies?

    • Wackes Seppi

      “Each theory will stand or fall on its own merit, and the evidence for each must be weighed fairly.”

      You are right. However…

      However, Don Huber’s assertions are a mixture of theories and alleged facts. The onus of proving the facts is on him. The onus of providing supporting evidence or indications for the theories is also on him.

      He has made extraordinary allegations in a — well-publicized — “confidential” letter to the Secretary for Agriculture. We are still waiting for the evidence.

      Where is the superbug?

      • Dave Pennington

        My original post said that I am also a skeptic of the microbug theory. I have no access to his data although I have corresponded with him to tell him about the personal data which was posted above (then deleted along with my complaint)

        I agree that the burden of proof normally goes to the claimant. So where are the long term GMO safety studies? Monsanto spent several years performing long term toxicology studies for glyphosate, and those are sealed as “trade secrets”. The one researcher who has gotten access to them says they show toxicity and data manipulation. Would you agree that these studies from the 1980’s should be released by the EPA?

        • Roy Williams

          Dave, there are many published studies looking for a correlation between pesticide use and human health outcomes. The very extensive and long-running Agricultural Health Survey (AHS) (over 50,000 participants) is by far the largest study done (it is still in progress). Some small studies have claimed a slight increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma was correlated to glyphosate exposure, but other studies (including the AHS), have not found any correlation. Instead, the AHS has now started a new phase, attempting to determine if the apparent link between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to DDT and Lindane is in fact a real correlation. These types of studies are incredibly hard to do, particularly with smaller sample sizes, because if a person is exposed to one agricultural compound, they are probably exposed to many other compounds as well. I’ve tried to do similar work in trying to isolate specific genetics with the effectiveness of specific cancer treatments – it is just about impossible without a lot of data.. The smaller studies just do not produce results that are statistically robust. That is why I accept the results of the AHS much more than any of the other studies. The other reason the AHS is much more convincing is that the data is available for investigation by scientists other than those in the USDA conducting the survey; there have been a lot of people who are highly trained in statistical analysis looking at that data for many years.
          Again, claims by one or a few individuals of data manipulation don’t convince me one way or the other. Give substantial number of published studies on glyphosate toxicity, I really don’t care if the data you refer to as “trade secrets” really exists or not, nor do I care what it says.

          • Dave Pennington

            Amazing…

            You say “I really don’t care if the (Monsanto / Samsel) data you refer to as “trade secrets” really exists or not, nor do I care what it says.”

            First off they definitely exist, on file at the EPA. They are “unpublished”. I believe the studies in question are listed here:
            http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/cleared-reviews/reviews/103601/103601-210.pdf (page 11)

            Your statement proves my point and I can almost rest my case. Like so many others you ignore or dismiss any data which challenges your position, which makes you an idealogue. As I have said those documents are not proven yet, but Dr Samsel’s experience is long and well documented. If he has what he says he does you should at least be interested in seeing it.

            Obviously if glyphosate is as toxic as Samsel indicates and those docs come out Monsanto is up shit creek w/o paddle. It will open up the issue of safety data for all GMOs. I’d say you’re really not interested in the data Monsanto itself generated, because it cannot be discredited as the work of the “anti-GMO” people with “an agenda”.

            You are now trying to shift the burden of proof onto anyone demanding proof of safety, which is utterly ludicrous. They are not the ones claiming that there are “thousands of safety studies”. You can try to steer the conversation into the weeds of human toxicology which of course is utterly uncontrolled and thereby far more open to debate. The simpler question stands: where is all the damn animal toxicology data? Why do we have a hard time getting access to it if vast quantities exist?

            The way I see it the GMO proponents can either admit that long term animal toxicology data is extremely limited (and STFU about the “thousands of safety studies”) or provide links to a lot more than they have to date, or run away and hide like Karl did, or keep throwing chaff like you have started doing. It will become obvious what the truth is.

          • Roy Williams

            Dave, you are mixing safety of glyphosate with safety of GMOs. Those are distinctly different questions.
            What I told you was that there are a lot of safety studies on glyphosate, and the preponderance of evidence is that it is not a health hazard. One report to the contrary is not going to change that, particularly not the study for which you provided a link. I just read that report, and I disagree that it is particularly relevant or that it contains any disturbing information. Some of the dosages used were quite high – so much so that if the material had been salt rather than glyphosate, the animals would likely have died. Besides, we now have a long history of human exposure to glyphosate, involving over 50,000 people, some of whom have been exposed for several decades. That is far more relevant than a high-dose mouse study.

            On the GMO safety side, GMOs by themselves are 100% safe. There are a lot of people saying that certain commercial interests are deliberately trying to confuse “the public” by mixing glyphosate issues into the GMO discussion. In fact, there are close to 400 different genetically engineered crops that have been developed. All of them are safe to use in food products; most have been approved for consumption. A minority of those have anything to do with glyphosate resistance. A few examples: Artic Apples, papaya, Innate potato, and virus resistant squash and zucchini: none of these have anything to do with glyphosate!
            So when I said I do not care about one more study, it is not a matter of being an ideologue, it is just a recognition that we have a very good study that has been extensively reviewed, that has a very large sample set (more than all the other human studies combined), and is without question unbiased.

          • Dave Pennington

            “we have a very good study that has been extensively reviewed, that has a very large sample set”

            what is that? Us?

          • Roy Williams

            the Agricultural Health Survey. Sorry. In the last paragraph I switched topics , back to the beginning, without indication. Bad writing, Shame on me.

          • Dave Pennington

            Roy,
            No one said all GMOs are glyphosate resistant. There are many other GM traits, and unfortunately most if not all of them were marketed without chronic toxicity testing. Meanwhile the GMO proponents said they were safe, and fully tested.

            Your statement about “all” GMOs being “100% safe” is scientifically baseless since there are few if any animal feeding toxicology studies of GMOs even 90 days in duration. You can check the GENERA database, I did. I even had the help of a bonafide PHD GMO expert (and proponent) who could only find ~23 but when I checked them out none of the first six fit the basic criteria. I will someday check the rest of them out. The one you sent the link to actually looks legit and I thank you for it.

            The percentage of GM crops and what they were engineered to do is irrelevant to my basic argument, which is that almost none of them have ever been safety tested more than a few months. The Snell review included a 35 day chicken study!

            Any toxicologist will tell you that passing a 90 day study proves little or nothing regarding chronic toxicity, which is why no GMO proponent wants to admit this issue even exists, and why sometimes in desperation they try say 90 day tests are sufficient.

            Your disinterest in the 2-yr glyphosate toxicity studies conducted by Monsanto really says all anyone needs to know. Trying to say we will learn more from an unfinished (!) human toxicology study, which just barely studies glyphosate exposure? That is creative, and desperate.

            Lab rats can be properly tested, and Monsanto did just that, for two years. They then dissected them and the results were reportedly so grim they had to jack with the control data to hide the toxic effects of the glyphosate (even at low levels). That’s fraud, and one which probably enabled murder on a massive scale. I’m sure you probably don’t believe anything like that happened, but then you may not know about Monsanto and what happened in Anniston. That was murder on a much smaller scale. That case makes this one easier to understand.

            It looks like you probably have little more to back up the case for GMO safety, but thanks for the one study link.

          • Roy Williams

            Dave, You are claiming that I am ignoring important information, while at the same time you are dismissing data that I find terribly relevant.
            With respect to glyphosate, here is one of many hundreds of papers published that have examined the accumulated data in the Agricultural Health Survey:”Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Risk and Insecticide, Fungicide and Fumigant Use in the Agricultural Health Study”,

            http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109332
            This looks at cancer incidence in pesticide applicators over a 14 to 18 year period. That is a much longer and much more relevant set of data relative to human health than is an acute toxicity study on rats.
            You said “lab rats can be properly tested, and Monsanto did just that…and the results were reportedly so grim…and…enabled murder on a massive scale.” That is a pretty extreme statement, which I am not going to accept unless there is substantial evidence to support your claim. When faced with a choice between the hundreds of published analysis on the AHS data, and the unsubstantiated claim you are making, I’ll take the many different analysis of the AHS study, such as the one to which I provided the link.
            You are also apparently do not agree that the experience of hundreds of thousands of farmers and ranchers over the last 20 years, feeding literally hundreds of millions of cattle for many years has any relevance to the issue of GMO toxicity. As a long-time member of the livestock community, I can assure you that no livestock operator would “cover up” a problem with GMO-derived feed. I also know from long personal experience that any negative impact of any feed is rather quickly detected due to the vast volume of feed being handled. I was feeding and milking dairy cows in the 1990-2000 period when GMO-derived feed became widely available. Neither myself nor any other dairyman that I knew ever saw any change in cattle health or longevity over that time period (that could in any way be attributed to the feed). And, again, thousands of scientists and dairy cattle nutrition experts with many decades of experience were studying dairy cow nutrition, health, and performance during that decade when GMO-derived feed became widely available. Dairy cow health, and a search for factors that impact dairy cow health, receives extensive scrutiny by literally thousands of these experts world-wide, and there has never been any negative health consequences due to GMO-derived feed. That’s the result of feeding perhaps 100 million cattle, each for their entire life. There are so many differences between organic dairy farm practices and conventional dairy farm practices that no comparison of cow health is possible (that would be relevant to impacts of GMO-derived feed).
            The rapid rise in human obesity over the period 1975 until now precludes any conclusions about the impact of any one dietary component on human health. True, hundreds of millions of people have been eating GMO-derived food for nearly 20 years, and all we know is that there is no known link between GMO-derived food consumption and human health.

          • Dave Pennington

            Roy,
            I’m sure that is an interesting paper, but it has has nothing to say about glyphosate or GMO toxicity because it is a pesticide health study.

            The GM industry tries to hide the lack of animal safety data because Americans don’t appreciate being used as lab rats. What you refer to is what some GMO zealots call the “trillion meal study”. It is nothing but a “common sense” dodge of the scientific toxicology data deficit. The fact is very little long term scientific safety data exists for GMOs and related chemicals, despite false and widespread claims to the contrary.

            This uncontrolled and unscientific “study” doesn’t refute the basic point one iota. A vast array of negative health effects can and does hide in the clutter of that much data, so it proves little or nothing. The difference between a useful study and a large pile of anecdotes may not be readily apparent to the “common man” but real science has rules they don’t have to think about often.

            You have provided one link to a single long term study on mice for BT11 corn, which looked at a very limited number of health parameters. It certainly counts as a long term animal feeding study for BT11 corn.

            Snell et al claimed to review 12 long term GMO safety studies and even that number was a stretch*. In order to say that “all” GMOs are safe each would need to have at least one long term safety study, probably more than one because many GMOs are deployed with herbicides.

            There are around 100 GMOs released** so far. There should be hundreds of long term studies available, and yet there appear to be perhaps a few dozen at most. It isn’t surprising that GMO proponents don’t want to engage this question.

            Now I am going to sign off on this particular conversation, you have been far more cordial than the GMO trolls who post anonymously, I thak you and wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

            * http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/3-health-hazards-gm-foods/3-3-myth-many-long-term-studies-show-gm-safe/

            ** http://time.com/3840073/gmo-food-charts/

          • Roy Williams

            Well, I’ve held off until now: genetic modifications to plants result in specific unique proteins being synthesized. In the course of a single day, we consume perhaps 500,000 different types of proteins from animal and plant products, and all the bacteria that is on those products. In addition, we consume perhaps a hundred thousand other compounds from that food. We digest all of that incredible diversity of chemical compounds, and our digestive system extracts the specific chemical components we need.
            This process works in spite of an uncountable number of mutations and variations in all those components that occur from one individual plant or animal to the next within the same species.
            It is beyond any credibility to suggest that somehow this one protein that is mutated or added to the plant or animal will somehow be identified by our digestive system as so completely different that it is not processed like every other protein.
            Now, when we insert a new gene into an organism, say, to prevent a virus attack, we know exactly what that gene does, or we sure would not go to the trouble to do the insertion. (I’m talking about inserting a specific trait that we want, not the insertions and silencing that we do routinely as a part of basic biological and biomedical research.) If the gene or genes that are inserted synthesize a “small molecule” (meaning it is not one of the four basic types of organic molecules from which all living organisms are constructed), then we can and should ask if that “small molecule” will survive whatever processing is done to that food source, and what the digestive system will do with that “small molecule”. This is a very different, and a scientifically valid question to ask if in fact the genetic modification will result in the production of a novel “small molecule”.
            So, from a biochemical and molecular biology perspective GMO-derived food is safe, with the caveat that in specific cases we address the questions I listed. No safety testing is needed, any more than safety testing was done on any other “new” plant variety.
            While I have not seen any “official” documentation, from a scientific perspective, the reasoning I just outlined could be why the first GMO plants were not considered materially different from the unmodified plant – one gene out of 25,000 is not a big change – far less gene expression difference than will be observed between two different varieties of the same species.

          • Roy Williams

            Thanks for the link to the Time article – nice summary. The earthopensource piece defends the Séralini study, which puts the author of that web page clearly in the set of people who cannot distinguish good research work from bad science or activist propaganda masquerading as science.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Have you done a large amount of work with procedures for raising healthy calves?

          • Cliff

            We have seen nothing but continuing gains in health and performance in dairy cows and calves during the past 20 years. Fortunately no dreadful newly emerging pathogens spiraling out of control, no population-wide epidemics, no mass poisonings – really remarkable. So, no adverse effects of GMO or rBST either. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of cow years across 5 generations or more. Truly remarkable and satisfying.

            Of course there are occasional producers, as there always have been, whose management precipitates mediocre, even disastrous results of complex and seemingly mystifying etiology. None of these regrettable isolated situations has so far been traced to nuances of any genetic provenance of feedstuffs. We’ve looked. You would have to show us where we missed it, if it’s out there.

          • Roy Williams

            Cliff, you are 100% correct.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Same here. Perhaps you meant this reply to be to someone else?

            We track feed so closely that we have been able to tell which side of the road it the field is on just from the feed tests. If there is a problem with feed–including GMO’s–a dairy will be the first to find it because each metric (general health, reproduction, milk production) is tracked so closely, and the daily inputs and outputs are monitored.

            We didn’t use BST because our processor asked us not to. I have nothing against it. We did wonder if it would mask symptoms of a cow that wasn’t healthy.

            We farm 70% non-GMO. We raise alfalfa, potatoes, triticale, oats, corn, conventional dairy, and grazing beef.

          • Roy Williams

            For what its worth, yes. 20 years bottle raising dairy replacements, in just about every conceivable housing set up. But all of it in Texas.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Thank you for sharing, I like reading your comments.

            I’m going from memory, but there were a couple of facilities, one in Texas and one in Kansas, that were raising calves completely enclosed, a real clean environment, and using fresh air vented to each calf pen to disperse the methane.

            That seems like the potential to provide the perfect environment. What do you know about those types of setups?

          • Roy Williams

            Contact me at [email protected] – I’d be happy to discuss this with you more, but we are pretty far off topic for GLP.

          • Roy Williams

            For what it’s worth, I raised diary heifers for 20 years, from birth to freshening. I worked in a maternity barn for a while that calved 10 to 20 cows a day. I raised calves in just about every conceivable housing set up.

          • Cullen Bond

            Hi Roy,
            Some of the GMOs are covered in Glyphosate. Also the nutritional value is altered especially for those who can tolerate herbicides.

          • Roy Williams

            Cullen, there has never to my knowledge been any evidence that glyphosate would alter the nutritional content of the plant – besides, that claim contradicts the known facts about the biochemical action of glyphosate. Furthermore, if you take any food off the grocery store shelf, and take it straight to any independent analytical lab with suitable expertise and capabilities, and ask them to tell you how much glyphosate is in that food, the results will be between zero and some extremely small number you probably can’t get your head around.
            The FDA regularly publishes data from tests like this – and they show that some “organic” food also contains traces of herbicides and insecticides.
            There are thousands of “engineering” changes that we can and probably should make to food crops, to improve shelf life, improve nutritional content, reduce susceptibility to plant diseases, improve the ability of the plant to grow in locations where it now will not grow, and other traits. While resistance to herbicide is an important trait for improving efficiency of the farm operation, there are many other traits that we should be putting into food crops as well. The ignorant, ideologically driven fear-mongering campaigns against genetic engineering are a threat to society as the world’s population continues to increase and we need to feed more and more people off of less and less land. The food crops we have will only produce so much per acre, and we only have so much water – have we already forgotten the four-year drought in California? Plus, we are loosing millions of acres a year to urbanization. Sure, Americans waste a lot of food, and eat too much. But the US represents only about 6% of the global population – even if the U.S. reduced it’s food consumption by half, the savings would only feed maybe 200 million people out of the over 1 billion who don’t have enough now and the expected 3 billion more that will be here in 30 years.
            Here is the unfortunate reality that we must deal with: there are about 24 million square miles of area in the world where people can live without excessive technical support, and where there is any chance of growing food. So, we already have over 250 people per square mile, and we must grow food for those people, which even in the most efficient of farming technology currently requires over 1 acre per person. Put this together, and we are headed toward a breakdown of civilized society unless we can insure that everyone has enough food. We would already be at that point if we were still producing food like we did 80 years ago, with yields of staple crops being about one-sixth of what they are now.

          • gmoeater

            Dave, you keep alleging something incredulous and then add “I rest my case.” Please do it. Rest your case. Bye.

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Dave,

            The way I see it anti-GMO proponents can spend a fraction of the money they are currently spending attacking glyphosate and simply test the stuff. Glyphosate is readily available.

            I’m an ag producer, and I use glyphosate. I’m concerned about anything detrimental to my health. Show me what is wrong with glyphosate, and I’ll flip positions.

            I’m concerned about chemicals, sunlight, fumes from fossil fuels, solvents, detergents, driving without a seatbelt, running a grinder without safety goggles, proper grounding of AC power, Roll Over Protection Structures, too steep of slope on the drive over pile, and a myriad of other possible dangers.

            At this point, I’m convinced that my lifestyle is more healthy and my risks are more manageable than the typical city dweller. I wouldn’t trade my risks for my city cousins’ risks–and I’m exposed to more glyphosate each spraying season than a small city is exposed to in a lifetime.

            Just test it. Show the danger. I’ll flip positions. I’m looking for better and safer methods.

          • Cullen Bond

            I have had had terrible reactions in my body after too much exposure to glyphosate. Why should I pay premiums to get my food tested? I should have warnings on my food if the pesticide levels are used to ripen or dry my food. If I want to stop at a fast food joint or somewhere, you can have the option of smoking a cigarette. Why should I be exposed to ingesting glyphosate? It’s not a natural thing, I used to think the chemicals sprayed on tobacco, etc where disgusting. Poeple can smoke it if they want. But again, why should a child be exposed to ingesting glyphosate by default. I think that gluten is a bit of a scam. But is likely confused with the glyphosate effects. Who are we protecting?

          • Roy Williams

            I agree that most reported issues with gluten are pure nonsense. But, do you have clinical and laboratory evidence that you have bad reactions to glyphosate? Why are you so sure that your reaction was to glyphosate, and what was that reaction? If you had a reaction after spraying weed killer in your yard, it is more likely that some other component of the spray was responsible.
            Your worries about bad effects of the occasional trace amounts of glyphosate are not supported by extensive scientifically verifiable data and biological knowledge. In fact, things that people eat, like salt and caffeine, are much more toxic than glyphosate – and that has been shown extensively with both animal studies and by verified documented medical cases of overdosing on salt or caffeine; additionally, there are relatively simple demonstrations that you can do with cell cultures that show that glyphosate is quite non-toxic.
            It is true that around 95% of the people who claim gluten sensitivity do not have gluten insensitivity, which can be shown through double-blind testing, There is an almost 100% chance that similar testing would show that you do not have any adverse reaction to glyphosate. If you are actually concerned about the health and well being of children, glyphosate is the wrong place to look – instead, you need to be working on convincing parents to not let their child eat so much that the child becomes overweight. Obesity, not traces of agricultural chemicals on food, is the great health crisis of our time. Obesity is caused by eating too much food – nothing else, and obesity is a major determinate in the occurrence of most diseases. So spend your time fighting obesity, not glyphosate.

  • gmoeater

    One wonders why Dr. Huber wouldn’t be doing everything he could to show scientists how to confirm this finding. It’s truly bizarre to say he has found a deadly microbe and then do absolutely nothing …. about it. Except to continue to claim that he’s found it and that it is really deadly. What kind of a scientist does that? I wonder if he’s trying to get a patent on this pathogen.

    • Good4U

      Right, well, I don’t think he’s trying to get a patent. He’s just “over the hill” as they say.

  • Great article. Just one thing…

    Organic, alternative health, and anti-GMO interest groups are all one and the same.

    They have worked hard to create the illusion that they are three different interest groups. But they are not.

    Anti-GMO is just the tip of the organic/alternative-health spear. And without a tax-funded organic and alternative-health industry behind it, there would quite simply be no anti-GMO movement.

    We would do well to recognize this.

  • Al Slinkard

    I suggest that Dr. Huber’s

  • Al Slinkard

    In suggest that Dr. Huber’s views are colored by his work on biological research for the US government in the 1960s and later, and he knows that bad news sells better than good news. What better way to keep busy in retirement?

  • ..::” Risk assessment of GMO plants generated via “Agrobacterium” – mediated transformation, as Agrobacterium can survive within plant tissue through transformation and tissue culture and can therefore be found within regenerated transgenic plants” … THIS IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT OF A SERIOUS RISK that has been known almost since the first release of Agrobacterium-transformed GMOs into the environment.

    ..::” The risks are far greater than stated. By the late 1990s, the Agrobacterium vector system became very widely used [see Figure 8], and many GM crops created were commercially released. Scientists at the KINSEALY Research and Development Centre in Dublin, Ireland, and the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Dundee, Scotland, were concerned that the inserted genes in plants would spread to wild populations by cross-pollination or by horizontal gene transfer to unrelated species, which was by then well-documented in the scientific literature.

    ..::” The antibiotics carbenicillin, cefataxime and ticaracillin were used respectively to eliminate the bacterium at four times the minimum bactericidal concentration, as recommended. They found that none of the antibiotic succeeded in eliminating Agrobacterium”.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/247156577/Ban-GMOs-Now#fullscreen

    http://covvha.net/gmo-health-environmental-hazards/

    ..::” Basically what we have at present is a situation in which genetically engineered foods are beginning to flood the market, and no one knows what all their effects on humans will be. We are all becoming guinea pigs. Because genetically engineered food remains unlabeled, should serious problems arise, it will be extremely difficult to trace them to their source. Lack of labeling will also help to shield the corporations that are responsible from liability.

    http://online.sfsu.edu/repstein/GEessays/Redesigning.htm

    ..::” All Morgellons patients screened to date have tested positive for the presence of Agrobacterium. Preliminary conclusion is that Agrobacterium may be involved in the etiology and/or progression of Morgellons Disease. Researchers concluded that the fibers biological in nature and are not simple textile fibers. These fibers, under the microscope, contain floral and root-like structures that may cross contaminate DNA from plants and humans by way of GMOs. Agrobacterium not only infect human and other animal cells, it also transfers genes into them. It was the State University of New York [SUNY] professor Citovsky and his team that made the discovery. Until then, the genetic engineering community had ASSUMED that Agrobacterium did not infect animal cells, and hopefully would not transfer genes into them. Agrobacterium was found to transfer T-DNA into the chromosomes of human cells. Gene transfer from GMOs does happen. Agrobacterium persisting in transgenic plants released into the environment has the potential to spread new diseases to plants, animals, and humans.

    ..::” AGROBACTERIUM not only infects human and other animal cells, it also transfers genes into them. It was the State University of New York [SUNY] professor Citovsky and his team that made the discovery. Until then, the genetic engineering community had assumed that Agrobacterium did not infect human cells, and certainly assumed would not transfer genes into them. Agrobacterium was found to transfer T-DNA into the chromosomes of human cells.

    http://www.morgellons-research.org/morgellons/agrobacteriumAndMorgellonsFull.pdf

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/agrobacteriumAndMorgellons.php

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/agrobacterium-morgellons-disease-a-gm-connection/9891

    http://www.ecodelmar.org/morgellons/summary.pdf

    http://www.ecodelmar.org/morgellons/

    ..::” A substantial body of research has accumulated to make the case that the underlying organism [i.e., pathogen] of the so-called “Morgellons” condition, as identified by this researcher, is using the iron from human blood for its own growth and existence. It will also be shown that the bio-chemical state of the blood is being altered in the process.

    The implications of this thesis are severe as this alteration affects, amongst other things, the ability and capacity of the blood to bind to oxygen. Respiration is the source of energy for the body. This change is also anticipated to increase the number of free radicals and to increase acidity in the body. This process also requires and consumes energy from the body to take place; this energy supports the growth and proliferation of the organism.

    The changes in the blood are anticipated to increase its combination with respiratory inhibitors and toxins. The changes under evaluation may occur without any obvious outward symptoms. It is also anticipated that there are consequences upon metabolism and health that extend beyond the functions of the blood.

    This change represents essentially a systemic attack upon the body, and the difficulties of extinction of the organism are apparent. Physiological conditions that are in probable conjunction with the condition are identified. Strategies that may be beneficial in mitigating the severity of the condition are enumerated.
    ••••
    http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/bio2011-6.htm
    ••••
    http://www.ecodelmar.org/morgellons/
    ••••

  • sha

    I am proof. I and others are living proof. I was a healthy women active ate well. Athletic to say the least. Now GO GOOGLE “PATM” We all have it and no one will help us. It is 100% related to food!
    I have had my life robbed!