GMO video by Potholer54

[Underseer]

Mostly, I'm just excited that Potholer54 finally made another video. His videos tend to be unusually well-researched.

 

[fromderinside]

Mostly, I'm just excited that Potholer54 finally made another video. His videos tend to be unusually well-researched.

"....whether it fits my beliefs or not."

 

[tupac chopra]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFIuyDehy-Y[/YOUTUBE]

 

[fromderinside]

 [B]Pusztai affair[/B]

The experiment as reported in The Lancet – if taken at face value – found that the transformation event or the gene construct produced one compound that is heat stable and that made the jejunum proliferate but had no effect on the caecum. And it also found that – at the same time – the transformation event or the gene construct produced another compound that is heat activated that had an anti-proliferation effect on the caecum but no effect on the jejunum.

A survey by the European Food Safety Authority <(2008)>* GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials concluded that "Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large (at least 100-fold) 'safety' margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed adverse effects and estimated human daily intake. The studies did not show any biologically relevant differences in the parameters tested between control and test animals."^[33]

* _{^{my date insert}}

all the above and yet ....

In 2005 Pusztai was given a whistleblower award from the (400-member) Federation of German Scientists.^[6]

 Genetically modified food controversies

A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 found no plausible evidence of dangers from the use of then marketed GM crops.^[94] Biofortified, an independent nonprofit organization devoted to providing factual information and fostering discussion about agriculture, especially plant genetics and genetic engineering,^[95] planned to add the studies found by the Italian group to its database of studies about GM crops, GENERA

All in all a lot of weak research, bad judgement, and misleading statements by Pusztai which lead to an awful lot of changes in how research is funded and sanctioned in the US to the US scientific community's benefit. Its getting back to genes are genes, breeding and GMO are strongly related and we will keep our eyes on things. But to date all that alarmist hand waving has been beneficial to the research process vis a vis business interests but not much research has shown anything approaching a problem.

 

[tupac chopra]

 [B]Pusztai affair[/B]

The experiment as reported in The Lancet – if taken at face value – found that the transformation event or the gene construct produced one compound that is heat stable and that made the jejunum proliferate but had no effect on the caecum. And it also found that – at the same time – the transformation event or the gene construct produced another compound that is heat activated that had an anti-proliferation effect on the caecum but no effect on the jejunum.

A survey by the European Food Safety Authority <(2008)>* GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials concluded that "Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large (at least 100-fold) 'safety' margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed adverse effects and estimated human daily intake. The studies did not show any biologically relevant differences in the parameters tested between control and test animals."^[33]

* _{^{my date insert}}

all the above and yet ....

Do you think the editorialising in Wikipedia is a good place to link to?

 

[tupac chopra]

Correcting misinformation about Pusztai’s findings

5. The trials carried out by Dr Pusztai consisted of 4 feeding groups of rats. Each group was fed respectively the same amount of the isocaloric (having the same energy value) and iso-proteinic (having the same amount of protein) diets.

In experiment A (published as Ewen and Pusztai, 1999. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354:1353-4), the four diets were as follows:
(i) normal, non-GM parent line of potatoes
(ii) normal, non-GM parent line of potatoes spiked with GNA lectin
(iii) GNA GM potatoes
(iv) LA (lactalbumin) protein diet, for healthy growth, as an internal control.

The lymphocytes of rats fed with these diets were challenged with ConA lectin (Concanavalin A, a protein found in jack-beans) and PHA lectin (phytohemagglutinin, a protein found in legumes), but this part of the experiment did not form part of the publication in The Lancet.

In a separate experiment (experiment B), which the researchers carried out earlier and which was not published in a journal, the same amount of the following isoproteinic and isoproteinic diets were fed to rats:
(i) LA (lactalbumin protein) as an internal control
(ii) Lactalbumin spiked with ConA
(iii) Lactalbumin spiked with the same amount of GNA as was the ConA
(iv) non-GM potato spiked with GNA
(v) non-GM potato spiked with ConA

In all other respects the diets were equivalent. So if there was any inadequacy in the GNA GM potato feeding group diet, this would have been the same in all groups and therefore a constant. Some have commented that “feeding growing rodents raw potato would cause serious damage to their growth”. However, this is, in fact, a non-argument, since raw potatoes were fed to all experimental groups and would therefore have been expected to produce adverse effects even in the negative non-GM potato feeding group.

Comparing experiments A and B, the weight, sex, and age of all rats were the same, as was the amount of feed given to each animal and the length of the experiment. The two experiments showed the same growth curve, and internal organ weight and all other parameters were identical in the LA (internal control) groups. On this basis the two treatments (ConA and GNA) could be compared, but they were not part of the same experiments.

Only 2 groups from these two experiments showed adverse effects:

(ii) From experiment A, those fed the GNA GM potatoes – implying that the GM transformation process (tissue culture plus gene insertion procedure) had produced a line of potato with unexpected toxic effects.

(i) From experiment B, those fed the Con A spiked normal potatoes, which was as expected for a known toxin and therefore acted as a good positive control (in which a substance already known to be toxic is fed to a group of animals to test whether the experimental design is sensitive enough to detect the toxic effects). This result in combination with the lack of adverse effects with the non-GM and the non-GM + GNA feeding groups confirmed the soundness of the overall experimental design;

In neither experiment were GM ConA potatoes tested. The researchers had the GM ConA potatoes ready, but they were not allowed to carry out that experiment.

But of course there is nothing to see here after all we have dozens and dozens of Monsanto studies (or their equivalent) to tell us there is no problem. It's called SYENCE. The fact that MOnsanto is the largest funder of GMO studies raises no eyebrows. The GMO cheersquad can't wait to worship at the Monsanto altar.
It's called SYENCE

But the extremely lame thing about the OP is that it doesn't dare take on someone like Pusztai but makes out that anyone who questions GMO's must bea nut.
But thats OK its all in the name of SYENCE.

It's quite amazing though. None of Monsanto's studies ever show any problems, but then again how would we know as they hide a lot of the data from us.
But don't hold out any hope of Monsanto coming clean. Unless you want to take them to court

 

[Underseer]

 [B]Pusztai affair[/B]

The experiment as reported in The Lancet – if taken at face value – found that the transformation event or the gene construct produced one compound that is heat stable and that made the jejunum proliferate but had no effect on the caecum. And it also found that – at the same time – the transformation event or the gene construct produced another compound that is heat activated that had an anti-proliferation effect on the caecum but no effect on the jejunum.

A survey by the European Food Safety Authority <(2008)>* GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials concluded that "Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large (at least 100-fold) 'safety' margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed adverse effects and estimated human daily intake. The studies did not show any biologically relevant differences in the parameters tested between control and test animals."^[33]

* _{^{my date insert}}

all the above and yet ....

Do you think Wikipedia is a good place to link to?

If it's between Wikipedia and a web site called "GMwatch.org"?

Which do you think is more credible?

 

[fromderinside]

 [B]Pusztai affair[/B]

The experiment as reported in The Lancet – if taken at face value – found that the transformation event or the gene construct produced one compound that is heat stable and that made the jejunum proliferate but had no effect on the caecum. And it also found that – at the same time – the transformation event or the gene construct produced another compound that is heat activated that had an anti-proliferation effect on the caecum but no effect on the jejunum.

A survey by the European Food Safety Authority <(2008)>* GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials concluded that "Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large (at least 100-fold) 'safety' margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed adverse effects and estimated human daily intake. The studies did not show any biologically relevant differences in the parameters tested between control and test animals."^[33]

* _{^{my date insert}}

all the above and yet ....

Do you think the editorialising in Wikipedia is a good place to link to?

Looks better than Pusztai's work by a long shot IMHO. The guy didn't include statistics in his pre-pub conversation because he was only summarizing what he'd been fed. Sheesh. he was let go for good reason.

At least the editorializing in Wikipedia is as good as the persons doing the editing and there are always referees on hand to contest what is put in there that have to be resolved. Don't you think that finding empty spaces by such as Wiki and pointing them out with requests for more or better information is a good idea. Compared with the obvious editorializing pushed by both the hand wringers and the moneyed interests producing Congressional results in Lancet and other journals Wiki is superb.

At the end of the day academics now have free access to data and freedom to report whatever they find which is a big blow to the industrials.

 

[tupac chopra]

Do you think Wikipedia is a good place to link to?

If it's between Wikipedia and a web site called "GMwatch.org"?

Which do you think is more credible?

The least credible is the video you posted. Seriously, what is the point of taking on the weakest opponents and claiming victory?
But a major problem is that they keep telling us that companies like Monsanto are engaged in science when they do this or that test.
Science is a neutral investigation. It doesn't care what it finds.
Monsanto's job is not to investigate but to sell it's products. Yet we keep being assured that what they do is "science". Your video makes that rather obvious mistake.

 

[bilby]

If it's between Wikipedia and a web site called "GMwatch.org"?

Which do you think is more credible?

The least credible is the video you posted. Seriously, what is the point of taking on the weakest opponents and claiming victory?
But a major problem is that they keep telling us that companies like Monsanto are engaged in science when they do this or that test.
Science is a neutral investigation. It doesn't care what it finds.
Monsanto's job is not to investigate but to sell it's products. Yet we keep being assured that what they do is "science". Your video makes that rather obvious mistake.

If that is a mistake, then it implies that no organisation that sells products can ever do science.

That eliminates almost all of the science that has ever been done from qualifying as science in your book, which seems rather extreme. But if that's how you want to define science, that's OK. You just need to accept that there is a very large body of non-science knowledge that is valid and sound, and that is as well founded as 'real science' done by non-profit organisations.

None of these semantic gymnastics actually achieve anything though.

So it all seems rather pointless. I will continue to call science 'science'; it is needlessly confusing to have a different word for the exact same thing when done by a for-profit venture.

Of course, if you are accusing all scientists who work for corporations of bias, then you will be keen to present your hard evidence backing that accusation, lest people imagine that you are engaged in unfounded defamation of hard working, highly qualified and committed professionals.

 

[tupac chopra]

The least credible is the video you posted. Seriously, what is the point of taking on the weakest opponents and claiming victory?
But a major problem is that they keep telling us that companies like Monsanto are engaged in science when they do this or that test.
Science is a neutral investigation. It doesn't care what it finds.
Monsanto's job is not to investigate but to sell it's products. Yet we keep being assured that what they do is "science". Your video makes that rather obvious mistake.

If that is a mistake, then it implies that no organisation that sells products can ever do science.

Yes, as it needs be neutral.

That eliminates almost all of the science that has ever been done from qualifying as science in your book,

If it's not neutral investigation then can it be science?
A)Yes
B)No

which seems rather extreme.

But can we assume someone is neutral if they are being paid by that company?

 

[bilby]

If that is a mistake, then it implies that no organisation that sells products can ever do science.

Yes, as it needs be neutral.

That eliminates almost all of the science that has ever been done from qualifying as science in your book,

If it's not neutral investigation then can it be science?
A)Yes
B)No

which seems rather extreme.

But can we assume someone is neutral if they are being paid by that company?

You seem to think not; but I believe you are greatly mistaken.

Getting a pay packet does not imply nor require slavish obedience to the company that employs you.

 

[tupac chopra]

Getting a pay packet does not imply nor require slavish obedience to the company that employs you.

Ahhh...but I didn't say it did. I asked whether we could just assume they were being neutral investigators. And that is a very different thing.

 

[bilby]

Getting a pay packet does not imply nor require slavish obedience to the company that employs you.

Ahhh...but I didn't say it did. I asked whether we could just assume they were being neutral investigators. And that is a very different thing.

Different or not, the answer is yes.

Unless you have solid evidence that an individual researcher or group is biased.

Bandying around generalised slanders against scientists is really very ugly behaviour, and I would hope that you would have the good grace not to do it without a firm evidence base to support your position.

These are real people you are denigrating here. Please present some evidence for your assertion of wrongdoing on their part, or withdraw it.

 

[tupac chopra]

Ahhh...but I didn't say it did. I asked whether we could just assume they were being neutral investigators. And that is a very different thing.

Different or not, the answer is yes.
Unless you have solid evidence that an individual researcher or group is biased.
Bandying around generalised slanders against scientists is really very ugly behaviour, .

Rubbish.
I have every right to question whether a scientist producing a report, being paid by Monsanto saying a GMO is safe to eat is biased.
To clarify this would apply to any scientist working for any company that is producing a product that is crucial to that companies survival.

The alternative is ridiculous. The alternative is that we must assume that scientists who work for Monsanto are some kind of gods who can never be compromised

 

[tupac chopra]

MOnsanto, who is the largest funder of GMO studies is not trying to see whether the food is safe. They are trying to get it approved.
There is no neutral investigation of safety going.

 

[bilby]

Different or not, the answer is yes.
Unless you have solid evidence that an individual researcher or group is biased.
Bandying around generalised slanders against scientists is really very ugly behaviour, .

Rubbish.
I have every right to question whether a scientist producing a report, being paid by Monsanto saying a GMO is safe to eat is biased.
To clarify this would apply to any scientist working for any company that is producing a product that is crucial to that companies survival.

The alternative is ridiculous. The alternative is that we must assume that scientists who work for Monsanto are some kind of gods who can never be compromised

If you assume that people are liars until they prove to you that they are not, you can hardly expect anyone to do you the courtesy of making the opposite assumption; so how do I know that what you are saying is not simply a reflection of your bias, rather than being what you know (or at least have reason to expect) to be true?

If we are to treat everybody as you treat those scientists who work for Monsanto, then we cannot trust a word anyone says, and further debate is futile.

 

[tupac chopra]

If we are to treat everybody as you treat those scientists who work for Monsanto, then we cannot trust a word anyone says, and further debate is futile.

That was rather dramatic

 

[bilby]

If we are to treat everybody as you treat those scientists who work for Monsanto, then we cannot trust a word anyone says, and further debate is futile.

That was rather dramatic

It is a logical consequence of your stated position.

 

[tupac chopra]

That was rather dramatic

It is a logical consequence of your stated position.

No, more drama than logic Unless you just misunderstood what I wrote.