I am Going to Stop Eating Corn

[Loren Pechtel]

Thus showing you don't know what you're talking about.

There is no rising problem with autism. There has been no actual increase in autism cases, there has been a big increase in correctly diagnosing autism. There were a lot of people who were being diagnosed as some form of retarded but they aren't stupid, they just weren't using that intelligence to interact with others.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/searching-for-answers/autism-rise

Two researchers who tracked the rate of autism in children born in the same area of England from 1992 to 1995 and then from 1996 to 1998 found that the rates were comparable, and concluded that the incidence of autism was stable. The study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2005.
But, Milunsky says, several studies have documented an increase in the U.S.
In a recent report in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood, Milunsky and his colleagues point to several studies finding an increase in autism rates. In 2003, for instance, a large study conducted in Atlanta found that one in 166 to one in 250 children had autism, according to a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


Who says its all a matter of statistics and not a real increase? Being cocksure saves time but does not really mean much in and of itself.

Looking at the number of autism diagnoses isn't relevant here as the issue is prior misdiagnosis. Rather, the proper comparison is autism + retarded.

 

[Will Wiley]

In other news
Scientists assembled for Monsanto say herbicide not carcinogenic

A panel of scientists is disputing a World Health Organization report published earlier this year that concluded glyphosate, the world's most widely used weed killer and main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup herbicide, is probably carcinogenic to humans.

Paid for bt Monsanto...

The 16-member panel, assembled by Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy, will present its findings to the annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis on Monday, aiming to publish the study at a later date after peer review. Monsanto paid Intertek for the panel's work.

With former employees and consultants ...

Ten of the 16 scientists on the Intertek panel have been consultants for Monsanto in the past and two others are former Monsanto employees, according to a roster published on Monsanto's website.

Howver as has been pointed out here they need to test Roundup, not just glyphosate.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In other news
Scientists assembled for Monsanto say herbicide not carcinogenic


Paid for bt Monsanto...

The 16-member panel, assembled by Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy, will present its findings to the annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis on Monday, aiming to publish the study at a later date after peer review. Monsanto paid Intertek for the panel's work.

With former employees and consultants ...

Ten of the 16 scientists on the Intertek panel have been consultants for Monsanto in the past and two others are former Monsanto employees, according to a roster published on Monsanto's website.

Howver as has been pointed out here they need to test Roundup, not just glyphosate.

One big problem here is that there are a numbr of companies that produce roundup type products and so this sort of study would be a rather complex thing to do if you are considering studing this stuff "in the wild".

 

[GenesisNemesis]

In other news
Scientists assembled for Monsanto say herbicide not carcinogenic


Paid for bt Monsanto...

The 16-member panel, assembled by Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy, will present its findings to the annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis on Monday, aiming to publish the study at a later date after peer review. Monsanto paid Intertek for the panel's work.

With former employees and consultants ...

Ten of the 16 scientists on the Intertek panel have been consultants for Monsanto in the past and two others are former Monsanto employees, according to a roster published on Monsanto's website.

Howver as has been pointed out here they need to test Roundup, not just glyphosate.

Just to be clear here, you're automatically dismissing a study based on your political bias against the authors. That's not how scientific thinking works. I could just as easily dismiss everything from the Natural Society because "they're a bunch of hippies" but I don't, because that's not how scientific thinking works.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In other news
Scientists assembled for Monsanto say herbicide not carcinogenic


Paid for bt Monsanto...

The 16-member panel, assembled by Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy, will present its findings to the annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis on Monday, aiming to publish the study at a later date after peer review. Monsanto paid Intertek for the panel's work.

With former employees and consultants ...

Ten of the 16 scientists on the Intertek panel have been consultants for Monsanto in the past and two others are former Monsanto employees, according to a roster published on Monsanto's website.

Howver as has been pointed out here they need to test Roundup, not just glyphosate.

The problem is, there seem to be a number of problems with this stuff outside of cancer. So as far as cancer goes, they may be correct but this is a side show.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/searching-for-answers/autism-rise

Two researchers who tracked the rate of autism in children born in the same area of England from 1992 to 1995 and then from 1996 to 1998 found that the rates were comparable, and concluded that the incidence of autism was stable. The study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2005.
But, Milunsky says, several studies have documented an increase in the U.S.
In a recent report in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood, Milunsky and his colleagues point to several studies finding an increase in autism rates. In 2003, for instance, a large study conducted in Atlanta found that one in 166 to one in 250 children had autism, according to a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


Who says its all a matter of statistics and not a real increase? Being cocksure saves time but does not really mean much in and of itself.

Looking at the number of autism diagnoses isn't relevant here as the issue is prior misdiagnosis. Rather, the proper comparison is autism + retarded.

But studies that try to take that theory into allowance seem to indicate that if you correct for that there is still a rise in autism cases. For one thing, there is a strong correlation with autism and premature birth, and there has been a rise in premature births. So the problem is rather complex and cannot just be brushed aside that easily.

 

[bilby]

Even if autism is on the rise, there is nothing to link it to vaccination; and even less to link it to glyphosate or Roundup.

Every single person who believes that correlation implies causation is going to die. Just sayin'.

 

[braces_for_impact]

You know what I always find interesting, even humorous? Asking anti-gmo people if they are aware of the other methods used to induce mutations in seeds to produce desirable traits. I ask this because I have NEVER heard anyone that is against it, but we had to do it it somehow before the creepy GMO's came out and starting making homicidal franken-food right?

Know what a couple of the common ones are? Chemical mutagens and radiation breeding. You would think that people would be freaking the fuck out over that, but nary a peep.

It's the same with organic pesticides. Many people go organic because they think that organic farming doesn't use pesticides, but this isn't true. They merely have to use organic pesticides, which means they have a natural source. Often these aren't as effective as synthetic varieties, so the farmers have to use MORE than non-organic farming, meaning more residue and more environmental impact. Often, organic pesticides are much more toxic than the Roundup you people are so worried about. Like Rotenone, for example. There's Solanine. Of course there's Nicotine.

Here's a nice list. The paper's authors estimate that on average we eat 1.5 grams of natural pesticides a day, which is about 10,000 times more than the amount of synthetic pesticide residues we consume. Yet you guys are worried about parts per million, even parts per billion. There's a list in there of 49 different pesticides on cabbage alone.

Synthetics, because they were man made are tested more. We know more about them. Of all the chronic cancer tests on animals, only 5% of the ones tested have been natural, and HALF of those are carcinogenic. There's formaldehyde in pears for Christs sake! Traditional crossbreeding alone can also increase or decrease the amount of natural pesticides in fruits and vegetables, and we haven't even tested those to find out how, yet no one is freaking out about it, and no one is calling for their labeling.

You are freaking out because of the psychological impact of "natural=good, synthetic=bad". It is the liberal version of anti-science, like climate denial for Republicans.

Never mind giving up corn, you need to stop eating. Period.

 

[bilby]

 

[tupac chopra]

You know what I always find interesting, even humorous? Asking anti-gmo people if they are aware of the other methods used to induce mutations in seeds to produce desirable traits. I ask this because I have NEVER heard anyone that is against it, but we had to do it it somehow before the creepy GMO's came out and starting making homicidal franken-food right?

Know what a couple of the common ones are? Chemical mutagens and radiation breeding. You would think that people would be freaking the fuck out over that, but nary a peep.
.

It is very easy to understand, when you consider how widespread GMO's are (and who pushes them).

Mutagenesis is not not a very effective way to produce food, and so is not so prevalent.

Most mutations are harmful to the plant, so you don't tend to get beneficial traits emerging. Occasionally it might happen through pure chance.

GM plants are everywhere and being pushed by powerful interests so it's natural people want them properly tested.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is very easy to understand, when you consider how widespread GMO's are (and who pushes them).

And who pushes them...? So, what, the GMOs wouldn't be so bad if Mary Poppins sang a GMO For Health song?

 

[Will Wiley]

In other news
Scientists assembled for Monsanto say herbicide not carcinogenic


Paid for bt Monsanto...



With former employees and consultants ...

Ten of the 16 scientists on the Intertek panel have been consultants for Monsanto in the past and two others are former Monsanto employees, according to a roster published on Monsanto's website.

Howver as has been pointed out here they need to test Roundup, not just glyphosate.

Just to be clear here, you're automatically dismissing a study based on your political bias against the authors. That's not how scientific thinking works. I could just as easily dismiss everything from the Natural Society because "they're a bunch of hippies" but I don't, because that's not how scientific thinking works.

Conflicts of interest are very important to consider in science.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

In other news
Scientists assembled for Monsanto say herbicide not carcinogenic


Paid for bt Monsanto...



With former employees and consultants ...

Ten of the 16 scientists on the Intertek panel have been consultants for Monsanto in the past and two others are former Monsanto employees, according to a roster published on Monsanto's website.

Howver as has been pointed out here they need to test Roundup, not just glyphosate.

Just to be clear here, you're automatically dismissing a study based on your political bias against the authors. That's not how scientific thinking works. I could just as easily dismiss everything from the Natural Society because "they're a bunch of hippies" but I don't, because that's not how scientific thinking works.

Conflicts of interest are very important to consider in science.

Sure, but claims are to be assessed based on evidence. You're not demonstrating why a specific claim is false if you simply say "well they're bought by x corporation so no reason to look into that."

 

[braces_for_impact]

Should we look out for conflicts of interest? Of course. But very few of the anti-gmo crowd I have had interaction with apply these points to their side of the debate. Being anti-gmo is ALSO big money. Frankly, finding the bullshit in the anti-gmo movement isn't difficult, just as it's very easy to spot the shit in the anti-evolution movement - if you're willing to learn the basic science and do very basic research without your ideology getting in the way.

Where conflicts of interest do not exist, the anti-gmo crusaders invent them. Where health concerns don't exist, they are made up. Where possible concerns are present, they are exaggerated.

I find the parallels between the anti-gmo and anti-evolution movement fascinating. Ask yourself, if you are armed with the truth, why all the deception? If it's just big bad corporate interests on our side pushing GMO on everyone think about what that actually means for a minute. A world-wide conspiracy put forth by a handful of corporations involving thousands of scientists in corporate labs, thousands more in independent labs, thousands more in food and agriculture inspection facilities, secretaries, lab assistants, undergrads, University professors, records keeping. You can chalk this up right next to the anti-evolution and climate change conspiracies, along with the fake moon landing and 9/11 truthers. Seriously.

 

[tupac chopra]

You can chalk this up right next to the anti-evolution and climate change conspiracies, along with the fake moon landing and 9/11 truthers. Seriously.

One big problem is that pro GMO people don't seem to have much science when it comes to roundup. Do you have any?
This thread is about roundup, yet the pro GMO people haven't posted even one scientific study that looks at roundup, and particularly none that look at blood samples. Secondly, the pro GMO people keep equating glyphosate with roundup

Evolution and climate change have endless studies showing their case, so i can't see how you equate the two.

Do you have any scientific studies of roundup, particularly ones looking at blood samples? Any studies comparing the effects of roundup to glyphosate. Because myself and other have at least posted peer reviewed studies on these things

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Well if you prefer your evidence to consist of horrifying photos on the Internet, rather than peer-reviewed research papers, that's fine.

Just as long as you don't mind having very strongly held opinions that are totally at odds with reality on a number of subjects.

Roundup/Glyphosate is, due to the exertions of the anti-GMO lobby, one of the most rigorously tested herbicides in history. It was developed as, and has proven to be, dramatically less dangerous to mammals (including humans) than any other broad-spectrum herbicide ever; and it replaces such genuinely scary chemicals as Paraquat. Many people are recorded as having drunk concentrated Roundup in an attempt to commit suicide; most have failed, and those who succeeded succumbed to the toxicity of the surfactant used to help the Glyphosate penetrate leaves, rather than due to the Glyphosate itself.

But there are LOTS of people out there who are devout believers in the evils of GMOs, and they tend to also believe that Roundup is pure distilled essence of evil. The fact that such people post disturbing pictures in support of their cause is no surprise at all; the probability that such pictures depict what they claim to depict is very close to zero.

If you want to reduce your maize intake in order to lose some weight, then that's probably wise. If you want to avoid maize because you are frightened that it will harm you due to pesticide residues, then that's rather paranoid; and if the pesticide that worries you is Roundup, then that shows a level of paranoia that renders you incapable of pretty much anything else - if Roundup is dangerous, then no science at all can be trusted, and you can't risk eating or drinking anything.

Bilby you are, for perhaps the first time in your life, talking bullshit. And kneejerk bullshit, at that. You don't respond to the question Cheerful Charlie asks.

Single dose LD50 measurements don't measure potential dangers of everything. You could drink a fair amount of mercury and have it pass straight through you without much absorption but long term exposure to even small amounts is still a very bad idea.

There was that politician who stood up in parliament and drank a glass of a clear colourless liquid which he claimed was either 24D or 245T (who remembers, after all this time) on, I suspect, the "it will pass through me" principle, in support of his favourite manufacturer. That didn't stop those substances being shown to be hazardous. REALLY hazardous.

There are reputable controlled studies showing links between GM fodder and birth defects and failure-to-thrive outcomes, that couldn't be explained simply by nutrition or other environmental factors. Again, years since I saw them, can't provide references, so feel free to dismiss me as you have denigrated Cheerful Charlie's request for information from anyone who might be able to get behind those paywalls via their profession.

Your table tends to make the opposite point from the one you are trying to support. BTW.

 

[Will Wiley]

Bilby you are, for perhaps the first time in your life, talking bullshit. And kneejerk bullshit, at that. You don't respond to the question Cheerful Charlie asks.

Single dose LD50 measurements don't measure potential dangers of everything. You could drink a fair amount of mercury and have it pass straight through you without much absorption but long term exposure to even small amounts is still a very bad idea.

.

Low doses can be harmful. But this has been pointed out here before

Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure

Abstract
Background
Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are the major pesticides used worldwide. Converging evidence suggests that GBH, such as Roundup, pose a particular health risk to liver and kidneys although low environmentally relevant doses have not been examined. To address this issue, a 2-year study in rats administering 0.1 ppb Roundup (50 ng/L glyphosate equivalent) via drinking water (giving a daily intake of 4 ng/kg bw/day of glyphosate) was conducted. A marked increased incidence of anatomorphological and blood/urine biochemical changes was indicative of liver and kidney structure and functional pathology. In order to confirm these findings we have conducted a transcriptome microarray analysis of the liver and kidneys from these same animals.

Results
The expression of 4224 and 4447 transcript clusters (a group of probes corresponding to a known or putative gene) were found to be altered respectively in liver and kidney (p < 0.01, q < 0.08). Changes in gene expression varied from −3.5 to 3.7 fold in liver and from −4.3 to 5.3 in kidneys. Among the 1319 transcript clusters whose expression was altered in both tissues, ontological enrichment in 3 functional categories among 868 genes were found. First, genes involved in mRNA splicing and small nucleolar RNA were mostly upregulated, suggesting disruption of normal spliceosome activity. Electron microscopic analysis of hepatocytes confirmed nucleolar structural disruption. Second, genes controlling chromatin structure (especially histone-lysine N-methyltransferases) were mostly upregulated. Third, genes related to respiratory chain complex I and the tricarboxylic acid cycle were mostly downregulated. Pathway analysis suggests a modulation of the mTOR and phosphatidylinositol signalling pathways. Gene disturbances associated with the chronic administration of ultra-low dose Roundup reflect a liver and kidney lipotoxic condition and increased cellular growth that may be linked with regeneration in response to toxic effects causing damage to tissues. Observed alterations in gene expression were consistent with fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondrial membrane dysfunction and ischemia, which correlate with and thus confirm observations of pathology made at an anatomical, histological and biochemical level.

Conclusion
Our results suggest that chronic exposure to a GBH in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system at an ultra-low, environmental dose can result in liver and kidney damage with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations.

 

[Peez]

spikepipsqueak:
There are reputable controlled studies showing links between GM fodder and birth defects and failure-to-thrive outcomes, that couldn't be explained simply by nutrition or other environmental factors. Again, years since I saw them, can't provide references, so feel free to dismiss me as you have denigrated Cheerful Charlie's request for information from anyone who might be able to get behind those paywalls via their profession.

If you can link to any such references, or at least provide a clue (e.g., author(s), journal, organisms involved), that would be greatly appreciated.

Peez

 

[fromderinside]

So I took spikepipsqueak's comment: "links between GM fodder and birth defects and failure to thrive outcomes" pumped it into scholar and got:

1. What the Primary Care Pediatrician Should Know about Syndromes Associated with Exposures to Mycotoxins https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com...ociated with Exposures to Mycotoxins_2006.pdf which has over 200 references many of which are certainly related to the topics in which you are interested. Plus the entire article is open to the public on the web.

2. The effects of mutated cationic amino acid transporter y+LAT1 at the cellular andsystemic level http://doria32-kk.lib.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/117365/AnnalesD1204Tringham.pdf?sequence=2
This article provides ten pages of references, is translated into english and complete on the web.

3. Enteropathogenic Yersinia in the Pork Production Chain: Challenges for Control http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.12108/full
another rich resource paper with perhaps little to do with genetically modified fodder other than it is included with other fodder in animals that may transmit this disease. Coplete paper with references many of which are accessible from the article as PDFs (some of which provide only preview or abstract without pay wall.)

Sure I'd like to get corporate scientist research counter to what the companies release, but, chemicals are chemical and wherever they are they have consistent end effects on salient human tissue over the long term. If the myotoxin is covered in the studies there and it acts on specific amino acid transporters are reported they you can rest assured those effects are covered in these articles.

While these may not be satisfying in getting at Monsanto, other Pharma, or Chemical giant is the target dejure the science presented is admirable and, as far as I can tell uncontaminated. If you find stuff which includes the materials under investigation in these articles you should be pretty sure of their effects.

 

[Will Wiley]

The effects of sub-chronic exposure of Wistar rats to the herbicide Glyphosate-Biocarb®

Abstract
The object of this study was to analyze the hepatic effects of the herbicide Glyphosate-Biocarb® (as commercialized in Brazil) in Wistar rats. Animals were treated orally with water or 4.87, 48.7, or 487 mg/kg of glyphosate each 2 days, during 75 days. Sub-chronic treatment of animals starting from the lowest dose of glyphosate induced the leakage of hepatic intracellular enzymes, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST), suggesting irreversible damage in hepatocytes. We observed the increase of Kupffer cells in hepatic sinusoid of glyphosate-treated animals. This was followed by large deposition of reticulin fibers, composed mainly of collagen type III. We may conclude that Glyphosate-Biocarb® may induce hepatic histological changes as well as AST and ALT leaking from liver to serum in experimental models.