GMO video by Potholer54

[bilby]

It is a logical consequence of your stated position.

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

It doesn't matter what you wrote; I have to assume that bias is more important to you than truth, according to your own argument for dismissing the results reported by Monsanto employees, so I can't trust anything you say.

Unless, of course, you have some evidence to justify treating Monsanto employees as more likely to be biased than you are - and you seem oddly reluctant to present any such evidence.

If you claim that people are liars and present no evidence, then our only reasonable conclusion is that you are just as dishonest as you paint them to be.

 

[tupac chopra]

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

It doesn't matter what you wrote; .

ok.

 

[bigfield]

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.

<snip>

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

Could you clarify which studies you are referring to when you say 'dozens and dozens' of studies?

I ask, because I have checked to see if there are dozens and dozens of studies investigating the effects of transgenic potatoes on the digestive system of mammals, and I have come up empty-handed. The studies that have been published investigate the insecticidal effects of the potato, not its effects on digestive health, or its effects on any aspect of mammalian health.

That is to say, there are not 'dozens and dozens' of studies, released either by Monsanto or by third parties, telling us that there is no problem. To claim that is total bullshit. In fact, there is ample evidence demonstrating that some lectins are harmful to human digestive health and produce effects similar to bacterial food poisoning -- that is why some vegetables, including potatoes -- should not be eaten raw.

As far as Pusztai's experiment is concerned, his methodology had been criticised as poorly-designed, making his conclusions suspect. One would be a fool to make any conclusions about the dangers of transgenic potatoes based on his study.

Once again, you are engaging in conspiracy theory thinking, imaging a worldwide conspiracy of scientists colluding to hide the dangers of GMOs.

Feel free to present those 'dozens and dozens' of studies whenever you please.

 

[tupac chopra]

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.

<snip>

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

Could you clarify which studies you are referring to when you say 'dozens and dozens' of studies?

Dozens of studies by companies like Monsanto on various GM foods

I ask, because I have checked to see if there are dozens and dozens of studies investigating the effects of transgenic potatoes on the digestive system of mammals, and I have come up empty-handed. The studies that have been published investigate the insecticidal effects of the potato, not its effects on digestive health, or its effects on any aspect of mammalian health.

That is to say, there are not 'dozens and dozens' of studies, released either by Monsanto or by third parties, telling us that there is no problem. To claim that is total bullshit.

Yes I agree that would be total bullshit, but I wasn't saying that.

As far as Pusztai's experiment is concerned, his methodology had been criticised as poorly-designed, making his conclusions suspect. One would be a fool to make any conclusions about the dangers of transgenic potatoes based on his study.

I think his experiments should be done again, don't you? You know... to clear up the doubt. Let's do a longer one with even more rats.

 

[tupac chopra]

Once again, you are engaging in conspiracy theory thinking, imaging a worldwide conspiracy of scientists colluding to hide the dangers of GMOs.

They do what their masters pay them to do. To do studies that show this or that food be not harmful in any statistically significant way. Like the study where twice as many chickens died after eating GM corn compared to the chickens that did not eat the GM corn.
The study was designed in such a way that even with twice the number dying it wasn't statistically significant.

Is that what real scientists do if they really want to know if something is harmful

It's not science. It is a business funding experiments designed to show as little as possible. Always reserving the right to not release a study or to not release data.
This is not science

 

[bigfield]

Could you clarify which studies you are referring to when you say 'dozens and dozens' of studies?

Dozens of studies by companies like Monsanto on various GM foods

I ask, because I have checked to see if there are dozens and dozens of studies investigating the effects of transgenic potatoes on the digestive system of mammals, and I have come up empty-handed. The studies that have been published investigate the insecticidal effects of the potato, not its effects on digestive health, or its effects on any aspect of mammalian health.

That is to say, there are not 'dozens and dozens' of studies, released either by Monsanto or by third parties, telling us that there is no problem. To claim that is total bullshit.

Yes I agree that would be total bullshit, but I wasn't saying that.

In reference to Pusztai's study, you said: '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.'

If the 'dozens and dozens' of studies you refer to are unrelated to Pusztai's experiment, then your statement above is complete nonsense, because Pusztai's claims have absolutely no bearing on anything other than the gene splice he studied. GM foods are not all alike: purported risks related to one do not automatically have relevance to all others.

One wonders why you brought up those studies at all, since Pusztai's study is not even relevant to their credibility.

As far as Pusztai's experiment is concerned, his methodology had been criticised as poorly-designed, making his conclusions suspect. One would be a fool to make any conclusions about the dangers of transgenic potatoes based on his study.

I think his experiments should be done again, don't you? You know... to clear up the doubt. Let's do a longer one with even more rats.

No, his experiment was methodologically unsound as his controls were crap. There is no reason to repeat such a badly-designed experiment.

See here for a study on the same lectin-producing gene spliced into rice.
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Poulsen2007

Perhaps that clears up some doubt for you.

Once again, you are engaging in conspiracy theory thinking, imaging a worldwide conspiracy of scientists colluding to hide the dangers of GMOs.

They do what their masters pay them to do. To do studies that show this or that food be not harmful in any statistically significant way. Like the study where twice as many chickens died after eating GM corn compared to the chickens that did not eat the GM corn.
The study was designed in such a way that even with twice the number dying it wasn't statistically significant.

Citation please.

 

[tupac chopra]

If the 'dozens and dozens' of studies you refer to are unrelated to Pusztai's experiment, then your statement above is complete nonsense,

You misunderstood what I said.

because Pusztai's claims have absolutely no bearing on anything other than the gene splice he studied. GM foods are not all alike: purported risks related to one do not automatically have relevance to all others.

Unlike most GMO supporters you got that bit right. They all need to be studied individually.

See here for a study on the same lectin-producing gene spliced into rice.
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Poulsen2007

Perhaps that clears up some doubt for you.

How could that possibly provide knowledge about problems resulting from collateral damage to the potato genome?
They all need to be studied individually. If the problem is from collateral damage in a potato genome why would you study rice?

No, his experiment was methodologically unsound as his controls were crap. There is no reason to repeat such a badly-designed experiment.

Like I said , use more rats or go for longer if you need to but do another study.
Unless of course you don't want to find out?

 

[bigfield]

You misunderstood what I said.

Here's what you said:

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

You made the specific point that it is suspicious that there are 'dozens and dozens' of studies that find that GMOs are safe, because Pusztai's experiment produced results contrary to them.

Or to put it another way, since you think Pusztai found that the potatoes were dangerous, you think it is suspicious that there are not other studies that have also found GMOs to be dangerous. You hypothesise that the reason there are no other studies presenting evidence of health risks is because they have been suppressed by groups with vested business interests.

It's a wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

You don't give any credence to the fact that Pusztai's study is crap and is therefore evidence of nothing. Which is probably also why potholer54 didn't waste his time on it, despite the fact that he gives ample airtime to dissenting scientists on other subjects.

 

[bigfield]

No, his experiment was methodologically unsound as his controls were crap. There is no reason to repeat such a badly-designed experiment.

Like I said , use more rats or go for longer if you need to but do another study.
Unless of course you don't want to find out?

His controls were crap. He has been criticised for using an inappropriate diet for his control groups, which invalidated his results. There is no point reproducing his mistakes, regardless of how many rats you use.

In addition to that, his hypothesis is fantastical, that the splicing process is responsible for the adverse effects he recorded. Unless other researchers believe that is a legitimate risk, they have no reason to put their resources into investigating it. It would be wasteful for a lab to follow-up every hypothesis regardless of it's merit, and Pusztai's hypothesis lacks merit.

 

[tupac chopra]

It's a wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

That settles it then

Largest international study into safety of GM food launched by Russian NGO

A Russian group working with scientists is set to launch what they call the world’s largest and most comprehensive long-term health study on a GM food.

The $25m three-year experiment will involve scientists testing thousands of rats which will be fed differing diets of a Monsanto GM maize and the world’s most widely-used herbicide which it it is engineered to be grown with.

The organisers of the Factor GMO [genetically modified organism] study, announced in London on Tuesday and due to start fully next year, say it will investigate the long-term health effects of a diet of a GM maize developed by US seed and chemical company Monsanto.

“It will answer the question: is this GM food, and associated pesticide, safe for human health?” said Elena Sharoykina, a campaigner and co-founder of the Russian national association for genetic safety (Nags), the co-ordinator of the experiment.

This should give us some much better answers than the bullshit studies Monsanto do. Although I'm guessing you'll want to disagree?
I suspect you'll think Monsanto's studies would be superior?

 

[tupac chopra]

His controls were crap. He has been criticised for using an inappropriate diet for his control groups, which invalidated his results. There is no point reproducing his mistakes, regardless of how many rats you use.

In addition to that, his hypothesis is fantastical, that the splicing process is responsible for the adverse effects he recorded. .

He proposed having one group fed the GM potato. One group fed the "normal" potato, and one group fed the normal potato with the pesticide.

That is a fucking good idea.

His idea was to actually test the safety.

But I'm guessing again you think that only Monsanto should do studies, in any design they like, and that they should have no obligation to release any results they don't like, and that somehow that would be "science"

 

[bigfield]

That settles it then

Largest international study into safety of GM food launched by Russian NGO

A Russian group working with scientists is set to launch what they call the world’s largest and most comprehensive long-term health study on a GM food.

The $25m three-year experiment will involve scientists testing thousands of rats which will be fed differing diets of a Monsanto GM maize and the world’s most widely-used herbicide which it it is engineered to be grown with.

The organisers of the Factor GMO [genetically modified organism] study, announced in London on Tuesday and due to start fully next year, say it will investigate the long-term health effects of a diet of a GM maize developed by US seed and chemical company Monsanto.

“It will answer the question: is this GM food, and associated pesticide, safe for human health?” said Elena Sharoykina, a campaigner and co-founder of the Russian national association for genetic safety (Nags), the co-ordinator of the experiment.

This should give us some much better answers than the bullshit studies Monsanto do. Although I'm guessing you'll want to disagree?
I suspect you'll think Monsanto's studies would be superior?

I will suspend judgment until the study has been completed and the scientific community has reviewed it.

I find it amusing that you have no idea about the quality of the existing research, but that does not stop you from rubbishing it.

 

[bigfield]

His controls were crap. He has been criticised for using an inappropriate diet for his control groups, which invalidated his results. There is no point reproducing his mistakes, regardless of how many rats you use.

In addition to that, his hypothesis is fantastical, that the splicing process is responsible for the adverse effects he recorded. .

He proposed having one group fed the GM potato. One group fed the "normal" potato, and one group fed the normal potato with the pesticide.

That is a fucking good idea.

His idea was to actually test the safety.

The potatoes he chose for the control were not comparable to the transgenic potatoes. See the review by the Royal Society, which points out several problems with his experiment and analysis.

His idea was to test for adverse effects caused by the splicing process, not by the spliced gene itself. That is not necessarily a 'fucking good idea', especially not according to a layperson's opinion.

But I'm guessing again you think that only Monsanto should do studies, in any design they like, and that they should have no obligation to release any results they don't like, and that somehow that would be "science"

You are venturing into conspiracy theory fantasy land again: Now you think I am in on the conspiracy, rubbishing any study that does not come from my Monsanto overlords, who have successfully released over 600 studies through their crony organisations. deceiving us into believing that GMO's are safe.

 

[tupac chopra]

rubbishing any study that does not come from my Monsanto overlords, who have successfully released over 600 studies through their crony organisations. deceiving us into believing that GMO's are safe.

A lot of people don't actually trust your Monsanto overlords. You are welcome to trust them but it's a bit rich to think everybody does

 

[tupac chopra]

I will suspend judgment until the study has been completed and the scientific community has reviewed it.

Until the study is completed??. Pusztai was sacked in 1998. Do you think that study is still going on?

 

[bilby]

That settles it then

Largest international study into safety of GM food launched by Russian NGO

A Russian group working with scientists is set to launch what they call the world’s largest and most comprehensive long-term health study on a GM food.

The $25m three-year experiment will involve scientists testing thousands of rats which will be fed differing diets of a Monsanto GM maize and the world’s most widely-used herbicide which it it is engineered to be grown with.

The organisers of the Factor GMO [genetically modified organism] study, announced in London on Tuesday and due to start fully next year, say it will investigate the long-term health effects of a diet of a GM maize developed by US seed and chemical company Monsanto.

“It will answer the question: is this GM food, and associated pesticide, safe for human health?” said Elena Sharoykina, a campaigner and co-founder of the Russian national association for genetic safety (Nags), the co-ordinator of the experiment.

This should give us some much better answers than the bullshit studies Monsanto do. Although I'm guessing you'll want to disagree?
I suspect you'll think Monsanto's studies would be superior?

So in summary, the studies by people who are working for Monsanto are suspect because the source of the funding implies that they will be biased; but studies by people who are working for a government that stands to make a fortune if they can find an excuse to contravene a free trade agreement and block imports of US produce are unimpeachable?

It is almost as if your position is that studies that agree with your preconceived position are valid no matter how flawed they might be; and that studies that disagree with your preconceived position are flawed no matter how numerous or well designed they might be.

And yet you expect people who see you argue in this vein to continue to give credibility to your stance. Very odd.

 

[tupac chopra]

So in summary, the studies by people who are working for Monsanto are suspect because the source of the funding implies that they will be biased; but studies by people who are working for a government that stands to make a fortune if they can find an excuse to contravene a free trade agreement and block imports of US produce are unimpeachable?

Some of things that make a study more credible are things like releasing all the data. Monsanto don't do this.
The Russian study will release all data.

‘Factor GMO’ will be providing full public access to all the raw data from the study when the results are published

http://factorgmo.com/swiss-merchant-banker-gives-backing-25-million-factor-gmo-science-project/
The Russian study is vastly superior to Monsanto's study in that it goes for much longer with many more rats.
The Russian study is also superior in that the funders will have no say in the design.

http://factorgmo.com/help-fund-the-study/

Factor GMO will not accept funds from the industry that manufactures GM crops and/or their associated pesticides. Funding from all other sources will be accepted, including from governments, business representatives, scientific funds and crowd-funding.
The funders of Factor GMO will have no influence on the design, results, or publication of the study.

This study will be vastly better than Monsanto's study.

 

[bigfield]

I will suspend judgment until the study has been completed and the scientific community has reviewed it.

Until the study is completed??. Pusztai was sacked in 1998. Do you think that study is still going on?

It is obvious that I was referring to the Russian study.

 

[tupac chopra]

He proposed having one group fed the GM potato. One group fed the "normal" potato, and one group fed the normal potato with the pesticide.

That is a fucking good idea.

His idea was to actually test the safety.

The potatoes he chose for the control were not comparable to the transgenic potatoes. See the review by the Royal Society, which points out several problems with his experiment and analysis.
.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm

Three different varieties of potatoes were fed to the three different groups of rats (Royal Society 1999)
Here again, the details don't support the accusation, but rather show how the advocates spin facts to confuse.

The study did use three different potatoes. There was a parent non-GMO potato, and two GM potato lines created from the parent. The two lines were produced at the same time, under the same conditions, using the same GNA lectin transgene.

But because of the unique and unpredicted effects of the GMO transformation process mentioned in Part 1, the two GM potatoes were not identical. One had the same protein content as the parent, but its "twin" had less.

In the animal feeding studies, however, they always compared one non-GM potato (the parent) to just one of the GM "offspring." And whenever they used the GM line that had less protein, they compensated by adding lactalbumin (a superior quality milk protein) so that the overall protein content was equal between all groups.

Dr. Pusztai and his team knew that the GNA lectin had not caused the damage.

Other rats had been fed natural potatoes spiked with the same amount of GNA insecticide that the GM spud produced - and they did fine. The control group fed natural potatoes without added lectin were also in good shape. And in a previous experiment, Dr. Pusztai had fed rats an enormous quantity of the lectin, about 700 times the amount produced in the GM potato, again with no effect.

The damage to the rats, it appeared, came rather from the unintended side effects of the genetic engineering process.

These effects (from gene insertion and cell cloning) may include massive collateral damage in a plant's DNA, with hundreds or thousands of mutations. Important natural genes can be inadvertently turned off, permanently turned on, deleted, reversed, scrambled, moved, fragmented, or changed in their activity level.

Dr. Pusztai wanted to find out precisely what went wrong in his potatoes, so he asked the government to provide more funds to conduct follow-up studies.

 

[bigfield]

The potatoes he chose for the control were not comparable to the transgenic potatoes. See the review by the Royal Society, which points out several problems with his experiment and analysis.
.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm

Three different varieties of potatoes were fed to the three different groups of rats (Royal Society 1999)
Here again, the details don't support the accusation, but rather show how the advocates spin facts to confuse.

The study did use three different potatoes. There was a parent non-GMO potato, and two GM potato lines created from the parent. The two lines were produced at the same time, under the same conditions, using the same GNA lectin transgene.

But because of the unique and unpredicted effects of the GMO transformation process mentioned in Part 1, the two GM potatoes were not identical. One had the same protein content as the parent, but its "twin" had less.

In the animal feeding studies, however, they always compared one non-GM potato (the parent) to just one of the GM "offspring." And whenever they used the GM line that had less protein, they compensated by adding lactalbumin (a superior quality milk protein) so that the overall protein content was equal between all groups.

Dr. Pusztai and his team knew that the GNA lectin had not caused the damage.

Other rats had been fed natural potatoes spiked with the same amount of GNA insecticide that the GM spud produced - and they did fine. The control group fed natural potatoes without added lectin were also in good shape. And in a previous experiment, Dr. Pusztai had fed rats an enormous quantity of the lectin, about 700 times the amount produced in the GM potato, again with no effect.

The damage to the rats, it appeared, came rather from the unintended side effects of the genetic engineering process.

These effects (from gene insertion and cell cloning) may include massive collateral damage in a plant's DNA, with hundreds or thousands of mutations. Important natural genes can be inadvertently turned off, permanently turned on, deleted, reversed, scrambled, moved, fragmented, or changed in their activity level.

Dr. Pusztai wanted to find out precisely what went wrong in his potatoes, so he asked the government to provide more funds to conduct follow-up studies.

Your source is Jeffrey Smith, from the Institute for Responsible Technology, and anti-GMO lobbying organisation. He is not even a scientist.

by Jeffrey Smith
August 9, 2010
from HuffingtonPost Website

You may recognise him from the video in the OP as one of the people pretending to be an expert, like Jenny McCarthy on vaccines or Christopher Monckton on climate change.

I'm not going to address Smith's claims because, frankly, he is full of shit, and you need to produce some reputable sources instead of wasting everyone's time with this crap.