Selalini study on GMO corn re-published

[J842P]

If you use a two year study on such rats, and look at tumors, you are an idiot.

What about if you do a two year study with 50 rats in each group and something statistically significant turns up?

Are you implying that they found significant effects vis-à-vis the cancer? Were you referring to the effects you listed in post #52?

 

[bilby]

If you use a two year study on such rats, and look at tumors, you are an idiot.

What about if you do a two year study with 50 rats in each group and something statistically significant turns up?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics#Confusing_statistical_significance_with_practical_significance

What you don't do is claim that it is indicative of anything more than that your experiment was not designed to eliminate false positives in that observation.

The most you can say from such a finding is that you would be interested in looking more closely at the observed result, using a properly designed study.

Claiming significance for the observation would be bad science; using it to sell your next scary book to a bunch of ignorant saps would be bad morality.

 

[tupac chopra]

If you use a two year study on such rats, and look at tumors, you are an idiot.

What about if you do a two year study with 50 rats in each group and something statistically significant turns up?

Are you implying that they found significant effects vis-à-vis the cancer? Were you referring to the effects you listed in post #52?

No. I think the European protocol for carcinogenic studies is 50 rats per group, so that's probably the appropriate number. And Seralini makes it clear they were not doing that.

Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study. We report the major findings with 34 organs observed and 56 parameters analyzed at 11 time points for most organs.

However Seralini did think a carcinogenicity study should be done with 50 rats in each group, presumably .

Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.

So I think what they found was "inconclusive" which I think is the stated reason the study was removed from the original Journal.
That might be the first time a study has been removed because something was "inconclusive". And bear in the mind thing that was "inconclusive" was not part of the study anyway, but just something that was observed and reported.

It seems like good science to me, to report what you observe, and maybe suggest further study be done.

I found this on their website which agrees with what I wrote.

Because his study had too few animals to comply with standard carcinogenicity protocols set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and other bodies, he did not do a statistical analysis on the findings related to changes in tumour or mortality incidence. A dedicated carcinogenicity study using larger numbers of animals would have to be carried out to enable such analyses.

 

[tupac chopra]

The most you can say from such a finding is that you would be interested in looking more closely at the observed result, using a properly designed study.

Which is exactly what they recommended.

Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.

Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors [3] that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.

We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.

 

[bilby]

Which is exactly what they recommended.

Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.

Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors [3] that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.

We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.

See, everything after the smiley is unsupported bullcrap.

You can't have it both ways; you can say "this study shows nothing but the vaguest hint at what we might be interested to look at in the future"; or you can say "...the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects...". The former is supported; the latter is pure horseshit.

 

[Jokodo]

If you use a two year study on such rats, and look at tumors, you are an idiot.

What about if you do a two year study with 50 rats in each group and something statistically significant turns up?

It's been posted in this thread before, but bears repeating:

 

[Bomb#20]

Since it's color linked the carcinogen must necessarily be the green artificial food coloring those jelly beans contain. The study needs to be repeated on all foods containing that so-called "green" food coloring, and also on all teal, magenta, mauve and beige colored foods since those aren't natural colors so they clearly aren't colored with natural dyes. (They don't even need to bother retesting any cyan foods since those obviously contain cyanide.) And they did twenty studies and only got one positive, which means revealing the danger evidently takes twenty times as many animals as they used in their protocol; this must be corrected in the follow-up studies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you use a two year study on such rats, and look at tumors, you are an idiot.

What about if you do a two year study with 50 rats in each group and something statistically significant turns up?

The only thing statistically significant that could turn up would be if you had a major breakthrough in cancer prevention.

 

[skepticalbip]

As poor as the study was, it seems that there were a couple conclusions that could reasonably be drawn from it.

Consumption of GM corn did not prevent tumor growth in this particular strain of tumor prone rats.

Consumption of GM corn did prevent death by starvation in this particular strain of tumor prone rats.

My understanding is that Monsanto’s claim about the corn is that it can be used to alleviate hunger in the world, not that it cures tumors.

 

[tupac chopra]

Which is exactly what they recommended.

Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors [3] that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.

We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.

See, everything after the smiley is unsupported bullcrap.

You can't have it both ways; you can say "this study shows nothing but the vaguest hint at what we might be interested to look at in the future"; or you can say "...the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects...". The former is supported; the latter is pure horseshit.

You're getting confused between the tumors and the organ disruption. Did you read the paper?
On the one hand there is the change in organs....These things are tested in a toxicity study with 10 rats per group, which they did..

Our findings show that the differences in multiple organ functional parameters seen from the consumption of NK603 GM maize for 90 days [3,7] escalated over 2 years into severe organ damage in all types of test diets. This included the lowest dose of R administered (0.1 ppb, 50 ng/L G equivalent) of R formulation administered, which is well below permitted MRLs in both the USA (0.7 mg/L) [33] and European Union (100 ng/L) [34].

On the other hand there was the tumors which they suggest needs further study. To do this study they would need 50 rats per group.

Surprisingly, there was also a clear trend in increased tumor incidence, especially mammary tumors in female animals, in a number of the treatment groups. Our data highlight the inadequacy of 90-day feeding studies and the need to conduct long-term (2 years) investigations to evaluate the life-long impact of GM food consumption and exposure to complete pesticide formulations

But when you are saying "you can't have it both ways" you are trying to make them the same.
Do you see? They documented some disturbances related to the organs , and on the other hand they see a "hint" as you call it that there may be a problem with the tumors.

 

[Jarhyn]

Cancer causes all kinds of shit to happen in the body of a rat, particularly over a two year period. Longitudinal studies on such animals are among the worst of bad ideas. It's why the Monsanto study went over 90 days: it allowed detection of edge effects.

Why can you not accept, from many researchers in many fields that such experimental design, particularly with the timeframe used by Seralini, are crap? If you want to do this study for 2 years, triple the number of test animals (at least) and use an animal with a mean lifespan of 5+ years. Administer the control feed to all samples the first year and examine morbidity, mortality, and other test effects. Use two otherwise genetically identical strains of corn, one with the roundup-ready gene and one without it, only breaking from baseline halfway through the study, so as to establish a clear point of divergence. Guinea pigs would probably be best, since they can be fed heavily with little to no ill effects on them.

 

[Malintent]

Can I ask do you have any relevant qualifications in this area?

It puts the data back where the public can examine it, and make up their own mind. That is the point.

Have you assessed what "the public" has in terms of qualifications in this area, or are you being inconsistent with your expectations?

 

[travc]

That would have been bad science. They did not have enough data to say it was "probably due to randomness".

The whole point is that they didn't have enough data to say ANYTHING.

Ok... First off, the Monsanto studies aren't any icon of 'proper science', but that doesn't mean Selanini's paper isn't misleading crap.

Selanini gives a shitload of various observations... The problem is that the experimental design (or lack there-of) did not produce nearly enough real data to draw statistically reasonable inferences and turn those into results. For the conclusions he is trying to draw, the 'data' he presents is really no better than anecdotes.

It would have been reasonable if he concluded that the protocols Monsanto used were insufficient to statistically rule out long-term toxicity and mutagenesis/carcenogen, but he tries to go a lot farther than that. In fairness, pretty much everyone who isn't paid by a big agribuisness corp already says the protocols used for FDA approval studies are insufficient... so Selanini's paper wouldn't have any sort of impact if that is all he said.

Monsanto's goal was to just tick a regulatory box, so they did what the regulator required and no more.
Given how his study is designed, Selanini's goal seems like it started off just trying to show that what Monsanto (and others) are required to do testing wise is insufficient. As I said, that is a fine thing to do. However, he presents his data in a way which appears designed to mislead: Implying there are dramatic results when there aren't any. What he didn't do was conduct a reasonable a longer-term toxicology study, nor did he do a cancer study. Yet, he wrote his conclusion as if that was what he did.

BTW: The "cancer study" thing is a bit funny and sad. He does say, up-front, that it isn't a cancer study, because cancer studies have standards he doesn't come close to meeting. However, counts of tumors are probably his most hyped data... Which means what? I can't see any other possibilities than stupidity or dishonesty.

PS: In the US we start with the presumption that, from the POV of something being food at least, (most) GMOs are essentially identical to the strain they are derived from. That is a fairly sensible position... Not perfect, but not obviously stupid either. Most GMOs vary a lot less from their parent strain than new strains derived through non-GMO methods do. The way a GMO varies is also much more known and controlled than the products of non-GMO breeding.
There are flaws with this presumption, but those flaws are not GMO specific. If you're really worried about novel health risks from GMOs, an organic locally bred 'heirloom' strain should scare the shit out of you.

 

[tupac chopra]

Ok... First off, the Monsanto studies aren't any icon of 'proper science', but that doesn't mean Selanini's paper isn't misleading crap.
Selanini gives a shitload of various observations...

Tumors have to be reported. Or as the paper says....Tumors are reported in line with the requirements of OECD chronic toxicity protocols 452 and 453, which require all ‘lesions’ (which by definition include tumors) to be reported.

The problem is that the experimental design (or lack there-of) did not produce nearly enough real data to draw statistically reasonable inferences and turn those into results.

AS it was not a cancer study, it's to be expected that they did not have enough data, as they would have needed 5 times more rats.

For the conclusions he is trying to draw, the 'data' he presents is really no better than anecdotes.

What conclusions are you alleging he is trying to draw. And please quote him.
I think it is fair if you want to allege he was trying to draw certain conclusions, to actually show evidence, in context.
Thanks

However, counts of tumors are probably his most hyped data

He doesn't hype it in the paper.
Naturally it get's a lot of attention though for a variety of reasons.

The way a GMO varies is also much more known and controlled than the products of non-GMO breeding.
There are flaws with this presumption, but those flaws are not GMO specific. If you're really worried about novel health risks from GMOs, an organic locally bred 'heirloom' strain should scare the shit out of you.

Science teaches us that we gain knowledge by hypothesis and testing. Yet, in this case you appear to not want your hypothesis tested. And Monsanto definitely doesn't want it tested.

Seralini is saying "Let's do the test"....You the US government and Monsanto are essentially saying..."we don't need to to the test, because we know the result without doing the test."

 

[AdamWho]

Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor

No surprise. It's been obvious from the start that they were more interested in showing GMO bad than in the truth.

 

[AdamWho]

Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor

No surprise. It's been obvious from the start that they were more interested in showing GMO bad than in the truth.

Like the PSI people I spent years arguing with, the anti-GMO people don't even have a physical mechanism which their claims can be true. For instance if mixing DNA were inherently bad how is it they can survive a normal meal?

This area is a HUGE potential area for skeptics and debunkers to look into but it is also a blind-spot for many skeptics because it crosses into their political beliefs (most anti-GMO conspiracy theories are on the left)