Are GMO foods really substantially equivalent

[Will Wiley]

Substantial Equivalence:
The Review Process for Regular Reports

Can you at least learn a little about the topic before foolishly weighing in?

- - - Updated - - -

Why the obsession with Roundup and Roundup Ready corn, anyway?

Anti-GMO cranks show no interest in other GMOs and the companies who produce them. They focus entirely on Monsanto.

This thread is titled 'Are GMO foods really substantially equivalent', but like most anti-GMO threads it focuses entirely on Roundup Ready corn and cites low-quality research from the Seralini team.

I'm happy to look at studies that test Roundup rather than just glyphosate. Can you show us any?

Mm fair enough. Though does this concept of Substantial Equivalence have anything to do with GMO foods? I see it linked to tobacco products.

From the abstract of the first study I linked to.

Glyphosate tolerant genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 was assessed as ‘substantially equivalent’ to its isogenic counterpart by a nutrient composition analysis in order to be granted market approval.

 

[bigfield]

Bigfield do you have any relevant studies at all?

I would live to see them if you can find any. Thanks

Why don't you look at the ones you've provided.

Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase

Explain to me the relevance of testing glyphosate on cells in a test tube.

Cardiotoxic Electrophysiological Effects of the Herbicide Roundup(®) in Rat and Rabbit Ventricular Myocardium In Vitro.

Explain to me the relevance of injecting high-concentrations of Roundup into animals.

No-one denies that glyphosate is toxic. It can even kill you in large enough doses.

Thanks to Seralini and friends, I now know:
- Don't shoot up with Roundup
- Don't marinate your placenta in Roundup

Here's the problem you seem to be having: you are happy to drop a link to anything that says, in one way or another, that 'Roundup bad' without actually taking any time to check what you're linking to.

And the frequency with which GE Seralini appears as an author on your sources is amazing. Do you look up these articles yourself or are you getting the links from a crank website?

 

[Will Wiley]

ok..so Bigfield you don't have any studies. Not even one. You don't even have one study. Not one study of Roundup, yet you know it's safe.

 

[bigfield]

ok..so Bigfield you don't have any studies. Not even one. You don't even have one study.

Food Standards Australia & New Zealand: Current GM applications and approvals
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/applications/pages/default.aspx

Approximately 70 GM crops approved for commercial use in Australia and NZ. Each application had to be supported with data showing that the crops are safe. Feel free to look through the documentation.

ETA: And since you are so obsessed with Roundup Ready maize:

Safety Assessment of Roundup Ready Corn Event NK603
http://www.monsanto.com/products/documents/safety-summaries/corn_pss_nk603.pdf

ETA:

ok..so Bigfield you don't have any studies. Not even one. You don't even have one study. Not one study of Roundup, yet you know it's safe.

Glyphosate
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/de...ions/files/efsaexplainsglyphosate151112en.pdf
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112

 

[Will Wiley]

ok..so Bigfield you don't have any studies. Not even one. You don't even have one study.

Food Standards Australia & New Zealand: Current GM applications and approvals
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/applications/pages/default.aspx

Approximately 70 GM crops approved for commercial use in Australia and NZ. Each application had to be supported with data showing that the crops are safe. Feel free to look through the documentation.

ETA: And since you are so obsessed with Roundup Ready maize:

Safety Assessment of Roundup Ready Corn Event NK603
http://www.monsanto.com/products/documents/safety-summaries/corn_pss_nk603.pdf

ok...so you could not come up with one study? I asked for a Roundup study.

 

[bigfield]

ok..so Bigfield you don't have any studies. Not even one. You don't even have one study. Not one study of Roundup, yet you know it's safe.

Glyphosate
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/de...ions/files/efsaexplainsglyphosate151112en.pdf
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/151112

Direct link to the article:

Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State Germany, for the pesticide active substance glyphosate are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1141/2010 as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 380/2013. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of glyphosate as a herbicide on emerged annual, perennial and biennial weeds in all crops [crops including but not restricted to root and tuber vegetables, bulb vegetables, stem vegetables, field vegetables (fruiting vegetables, brassica vegetables, leaf vegetables and fresh herbs, legume vegetables), pulses, oil seeds, potatoes, cereals, and sugar- and fodder beet; orchard crops and vine, before planting fruit crops, ornamentals, trees, nursery plants etc.] and foliar spraying for desiccation in cereals and oilseeds (pre-harvest). The reliable endpoints, concluded as being appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and derived from the available studies and literature in the dossier peer reviewed, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified. Following a second mandate from the European Commission to consider the findings from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) regarding the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate or glyphosate-containing plant protection products in the on-going peer review of the active substance, EFSA concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.

 

[bigfield]

Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide. Several epidemiological studies on canceroutcomes following occupational exposure to glyphosate were available. The evaluation of thesestudies focused on the occurrence of NHL. Overall, there is some evidence of a positive associationbetween glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL from the case–control studies and the overall metaanalysis.However, it is notable that the only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence ofan association at any exposure level. Glyphosate has been extensively tested for genotoxic effectsusing a variety of tests in a wide range of organisms. The overall weight of evidence indicates thatadministration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as 2000 mg/kg body weightby the oral route, the route most relevant to human dietary exposure, was not associated withgenotoxic effects in an overwhelming majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model consideredto be appropriate for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate isunlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. Several carcinogenicity studies in mice andrats are available. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could notexclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. In view of the absence ofcarcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oralroute in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, theMeeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposurethrough the diet. The Meeting reaffirmed the group ADI for the sum of glyphosate and its metabolitesof 0–1 mg/kg body weight on the basis of effects on the salivary gland. The Meeting concluded that itwas not necessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acutetoxicity.

 

[bigfield]

GM crops are submitted to a much higher level of scrutiny than any other crops, and glyphosate has been tested thoroughly.

I fail to why we should entertain your paranoid fears about Monsanto:

Why the obsession with Roundup and Roundup Ready corn, anyway?

Anti-GMO cranks show no interest in other GMOs and the companies who produce them. They focus entirely on Monsanto.

This thread is titled 'Are GMO foods really substantially equivalent', but like most anti-GMO threads it focuses entirely on Roundup Ready corn and cites low-quality research from the Seralini team.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Months go by and new crank studies emerge. Rinse and repeat over and over again. Meanwhile livestock, domesticated animals and people aren't getting sick from these foods. I imagine a Selini future in which we still see these studies in a hundred years and still no one is getting ill.

 

[Will Wiley]

Months go by and new crank studies emerge. Rinse and repeat over and over again. Meanwhile livestock, domesticated animals and people aren't getting sick from these foods. I imagine a Selini future in which we still see these studies in a hundred years and still no one is getting ill.

Do you have any science to back up your claims?
Here is a study suggesting otherwise.

Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum.

During the last 10-15 years, an increase of Clostridium botulinum associated diseases in cattle has been observed in Germany. The reason for this development is currently unknown. The normal intestinal microflora is a critical factor in preventing intestinal colonisation by C. botulinum as shown in the mouse model of infant botulism. Numerous bacteria in the gastro-intestinal tract (GIT) produce bacteriocines directed against C. botulinum and other pathogens: Lactic acid producing bacteria (LAB) such as lactobacilli, lactococci and enterococci, generate bacteriocines that are effective against Clostridium spp. A reduction of LAB in the GIT microbiota by ingestion of strong biocides like glyphosate could be an explanation for the observed increase in levels of C. botulinum associated diseases. In the present paper, we report on the toxicity of glyphosate to the most prevalent Enterococcus spp. in the GIT. Ingestion of this herbicide could be a significant predisposing factor that is associated with the increase in C. botulinum mediated diseases in cattle.

- - - Updated - - -

I might have to start another thread, as bigfield keeps spamming this one with glyphosate studies rather than roundup studies.

I have moved the Roundup discussion to another thread. But can I please ask that people post Roundup studies and not glyphosate studies.
Thank you
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-shown-Roundup-to-be-safe&p=392521#post392521

 

[bigfield]

Do you have any science to back up your claims?
Here is a study suggesting otherwise.

Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum.

During the last 10-15 years, an increase of Clostridium botulinum associated diseases in cattle has been observed in Germany. The reason for this development is currently unknown. The normal intestinal microflora is a critical factor in preventing intestinal colonisation by C. botulinum as shown in the mouse model of infant botulism. Numerous bacteria in the gastro-intestinal tract (GIT) produce bacteriocines directed against C. botulinum and other pathogens: Lactic acid producing bacteria (LAB) such as lactobacilli, lactococci and enterococci, generate bacteriocines that are effective against Clostridium spp. A reduction of LAB in the GIT microbiota by ingestion of strong biocides like glyphosate could be an explanation for the observed increase in levels of C. botulinum associated diseases. In the present paper, we report on the toxicity of glyphosate to the most prevalent Enterococcus spp. in the GIT. Ingestion of this herbicide could be a significant predisposing factor that is associated with the increase in C. botulinum mediated diseases in cattle.

- - - Updated - - -

I might have to start another thread, as bigfield keeps spamming this one with glyphosate studies rather than roundup studies.

I have moved the Roundup discussion to another thread. But can I please ask that people post Roundup studies and not glyphosate studies.
Thank you
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-shown-Roundup-to-be-safe&p=392521#post392521

^ Complains about glyphosate studies immediately after posting a glyphosate study.

 

[Will Wiley]

Do you have any science to back up your claims?
Here is a study suggesting otherwise.

Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum.



- - - Updated - - -

I might have to start another thread, as bigfield keeps spamming this one with glyphosate studies rather than roundup studies.

I have moved the Roundup discussion to another thread. But can I please ask that people post Roundup studies and not glyphosate studies.
Thank you
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-shown-Roundup-to-be-safe&p=392521#post392521

^ Complains about glyphosate studies immediately after posting a glyphosate study.

Wow.. Roundup contains glyphosate but is not glyphosate. I actually, now, wish you the very best. I don't want to aggravate you any more. all the best.
I'm going to put you on ignore, and genuinely do wish you well.

 

[bilby]

^ Complains about glyphosate studies immediately after posting a glyphosate study.

Wow.. Roundup contains glyphosate but is not glyphosate. I actually, now, wish you the very best. I don't want to aggravate you any more. all the best.
I'm going to put you on ignore, and genuinely do wish you well.

Glyphosate defines Roundup. Monsanto markets a range of weedkillers with Glyphosate as the active ingredient; All of them are called Roundup. The excipients vary from product to product in the range, so there is no such thing as testing Roundup - you have to be more specific if you want to identify a single product to test.

In the same way, soluble Disprin isn't the same as chewable Disprin, which isn't the same as Disprin caplets. But all of them are aspirin; and aspirin is what you need to do the testing on - because the excipients are just there to do exactly the things Dr Z mentioned - to help the dispersal and uptake of the finished product, and to extend the shelf-life of the product.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that there are non-Glyphosate ingredients in one or more formulations of Roundup (perhaps only Roundup, and not other brands?) that 'activates' the Glyphosate. This is deeply wrong, and indicates a total absence of understanding of how Glyphosate works - it doesn't need 'activation', it's already as active as it could ever be.

Glyphosate inhibits a plant enzyme called EPSPS (5-enolpyruvyl–shikimate-3–phosphate synthase). Inhibition of this enzyme prevents production of certain aromatic amino acids, preventing the plant from making the proteins it needs to photosynthesise. The enzyme is inhibited if Glyphosate is present; and not if it is not. Any change to the Glyphosate molecule would stop it from working; its not possible to add a chemical to 'activate' the Glyphosate.

Not even if the people at Mercola really really want it to be, so that they can focus their hate on Monsanto.

 

[bigfield]

--

 

[Malintent]

reading the posted article, "Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum." the abstract states,

A reduction of LAB in the GIT microbiota by ingestion of strong biocides like glyphosate could be an explanation for the observed increase in levels of C. botulinum associated diseases.

This is further support that GMO crops are not the issue, but the application of stronger concentrates of Roundup left on the surface of such crops may be an issue.... is drinking poison a problem, or is it that you read the label on the container holding the poison that got you sick? One might think it is the ingestion of the poison itself, no?

The sighted study is about drinking roundup, not the quality of GMO crops that might have a coating of roundup on them... right there on the surface of the study.

 

[fromderinside]

So. Is anybody drinking roundup? I thought not. Seems to me whatever effects drinking roundup has on humans is degraded when it's a residue on plants. Unless you think there is some energy proposition that flows in the other direction with such conditions which you haven't specified. Now, if plants were like insects and had developed the capacity to increase the strength of stuff over exposure adaptations that might be an idea. It isn't of course.

 

[blastula]

I drink it, but not straight of course. I mix mine with tonic, sometimes Coke.

 

[Malintent]

So. Is anybody drinking roundup? I thought not. Seems to me whatever effects drinking roundup has on humans is degraded when it's a residue on plants. Unless you think there is some energy proposition that flows in the other direction with such conditions which you haven't specified. Now, if plants were like insects and had developed the capacity to increase the strength of stuff over exposure adaptations that might be an idea. It isn't of course.

Well if no one is ingesting roundup at all, then this study, and the thread, are moot. The question of differences in crops has absolutely nothing to do with the effects of ingesting roundup (that is sitting on the surface of overdosed crops).

so I guess your answer to the question is that the studies do not address the similarities or differences between GMO and non-GMO crops... which I agree with.

The issue I have with GMO crops is how farmers can (and do) now overuse roundup and the like, because it's cheap and easier than dealing with pests in the garden, so to speak. The products we bring home now-a-days are relatively toxic, unless washed extremely well... that is, we THINK it is removed when washed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Substantially equivalent ... I doubt it.

GMO's = patented ownership .

Oddly, I think this is much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more important that the whole GMO is going to kill us.

While I understand the desire to protect investments into crop development, the idea of a corporation being able to own a crop food seems open to significant exploitation. If certain chemicals are used for growing crops, a corporation could manipulate agriculture to create monopolies for any number of crops. As we've seen with medications, this can be dangerous and exploited.

 

[Learner]

Never realised the potential of exploitations like the example of costly medications. I was remembering at the time when a friend mentioned to me about terminator seeds(patented) which I had no clue about. These seeds are said to yield only once therefore can't be saved for future crops. You would need to keep buying seeds or have some permit for the usual GMO crops . For the poor farmer this is scary.

Probably one of the reasons they are banned in Europe.