Support GMO foods

[Crazy Eddie]

SERIOUSLY?!

View attachment 2264

If the "huge logistics costs" associated with accurate labeling were THAT burdensome, we all would have starved to death decades ago.

Furthermore, "(genetically modified Oryza Sativa)" is pure scare tactics.

No moreso than "partially hydrogenated soybean oil". It's the actual name of the product being used.

The problem is that you have to bend over backwards to carefully separate things which are impossible to tell apart short of expensive testing.

OR you could just pay the slightest bit of attention to where your suppliers are getting their stocks and have them specify exactly what kind of foodstocks they're selling you.

Also known as "Compliance with existing labeling laws."

Also known as "Not being an imbecile."

It's obvious the costs are high.

And yet our food is still relatively affordable despite those "high costs" that result from listing the ingredients used in products.

You're making the claim that a product that was manufactured using RR Soybeans would cost more than a non-RR product PURELY because the RR Soybean product has to list RR Soybeans on its ingredient list.

THAT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.

But of course I know you're either going to double down on that claim or change the subject altogether, because you're You.

What's hard is to pin down the costs.

It's not hard at all.

"Soybeans"
"Genetically modified Soybeans."

Count the extra letters and calculate the value of the ink.

 

[arkirk]

We don't need anything more than some sort of symbol that informs us "this product contains GMO's. Only an idiot would have trouble complying with it. We are not asking them to breakdown percentages by weight or anything like that. Just tell us if we are eating GMO's. Surely the makers know what they are making and can label it. I think Monsanto's fight against labeling is an attempt to keep any negative results a mystery as long as possible. They know they are over the line and are just doing like the tobacco and asbestos people did...clouding the issue with phony economic arguments.

 

[Jarhyn]

We don't need anything more than some sort of symbol that informs us "this product contains GMO's. Only an idiot would have trouble complying with it. We are not asking them to breakdown percentages by weight or anything like that. Just tell us if we are eating GMO's. Surely the makers know what they are making and can label it. I think Monsanto's fight against labeling is an attempt to keep any negative results a mystery as long as possible. They know they are over the line and are just doing like the tobacco and asbestos people did...clouding the issue with phony economic arguments.

And we've explained that such a label is meaningless because it's like saying 'was processed on a machine'. Which trait, what insertion method, at what location in the gene. Those are the important pieces of information. Anything less and the data is meaningless except to attack transgenics, like a filthy Luddite.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We don't need anything more than some sort of symbol that informs us "this product contains GMO's. Only an idiot would have trouble complying with it. We are not asking them to breakdown percentages by weight or anything like that. Just tell us if we are eating GMO's. Surely the makers know what they are making and can label it. I think Monsanto's fight against labeling is an attempt to keep any negative results a mystery as long as possible. They know they are over the line and are just doing like the tobacco and asbestos people did...clouding the issue with phony economic arguments.

And we've explained that such a label is meaningless because it's like saying 'was processed on a machine'. Which trait, what insertion method, at what location in the gene. Those are the important pieces of information.

The entire point of labeling is for the consumer's information and ability to make an informed product choice, not for the collection of data or to increase knowledge of potential health risks. Of course, keeping the public AWARE of the consumption of GMO foods would much it considerably easier to justify the long term studies that would actually determine if GMOs -- and which ones -- pose a health risk.

Anything less and the data is meaningless except to attack transgenics, like a filthy Luddite.

It is interesting that you seem to be advocating a reliance on valid empirical data in one sentence and then immediately resort to ad hominem rhetoric in the very next sentence. It's almost as if science is just a rhetorical tool to justify a position to which you are already deeply emotionally invested.

 

[bilby]

We don't need anything more than some sort of symbol that informs us "this product contains GMO's. Only an idiot would have trouble complying with it. We are not asking them to breakdown percentages by weight or anything like that. Just tell us if we are eating GMO's. Surely the makers know what they are making and can label it. I think Monsanto's fight against labeling is an attempt to keep any negative results a mystery as long as possible. They know they are over the line and are just doing like the tobacco and asbestos people did...clouding the issue with phony economic arguments.

If you care, then buy stuff that is labelled 'GMO Free', or 'Organic'. If you assume that anything without those labels contains at least traces of GMOs, you won't go far wrong.

Of course, if you were someone whose objective is not to be informed himself, but instead to needlessly scare people who currently don't care either way, then you couldn't accept this solution - because it only has the effect you claim to desire, while neatly avoiding the effect you were secretly hoping for. But as long as you were not engaged in such underhanded tactics, I don't understand why this solution would not be perfectly acceptable.

 

[Jarhyn]

And we've explained that such a label is meaningless because it's like saying 'was processed on a machine'. Which trait, what insertion method, at what location in the gene. Those are the important pieces of information.

The entire point of labeling is for the consumer's information and ability to make an informed product choice, not for the collection of data or to increase knowledge of potential health risks. Of course, keeping the public AWARE of the consumption of GMO foods would much it considerably easier to justify the long term studies that would actually determine if GMOs -- and which ones -- pose a health risk.

Anything less and the data is meaningless except to attack transgenics, like a filthy Luddite.

It is interesting that you seem to be advocating a reliance on valid empirical data in one sentence and then immediately resort to ad hominem rhetoric in the very next sentence. It's almost as if science is just a rhetorical tool to justify a position to which you are already deeply emotionally invested.

If you put a label on beef that says 'contains animal parts or animal byproducts' how useful would that be? If you had a balloon and there was a label they had to put on it that said 'contains gas' how useful would THAT be? Or a product that had a label 'contains metal'. How about a machine that had a label 'some parts of this have been processed using a lathe'.

It gives information, but the information is utterly useless except to force the existence of a label on something a Luddite doesn't like.

it would be like coming up with a non-constructive proof of P=NP and saying encryption is 100% unsafe for everyone, everywhere, regardless of the algorithm. It would say something, but the information itself would be useless and impossible to leverage; specific proofs to attack specific encryptio a would still need to be made, and it's still possible that such proofs could themselves prove that the complexity of the polynomial-time solution for a problem would still be intractable. It would say something true, but ultimately worthless. The ability to make an Inormed decision of whether or not to eat a SPECIFIC GMO requires at the minimum a knowledge of which GMO you are eating, and in what quantity. Any less specific information and the only thing you succeed in is warning people irrationally away from GMO.

Your inability to PICK a GMO and focus on it belies a lack of scientific integrity. The blanket accusation and suspicion not of the result but of the method is itself the reason I use words like 'Luddite' to describe anti-GMO zealots. They have no integrity. I'm not going to debate science any further until some bare semblance of honest methodology presents itself.

Let's look at the trivial case: someone uses Cauliflower Mozaic Virus to remove a gene. They clone the plant and put the gene back in. After some work, they confirm that the clone is genetically identical to the original plant. It would itself be a GMO. It would be absolutely guaranteed to be safe. It could literally not possibly be not-safe in relation to the original organism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Almost every crop, GMO or not, organic or not, uses a chemical pesticide to prevent their crops from being devoured by insects. You wouldn't want to drink any of those pesticides straight from a cup, Round-up or not, organic or not. With a forced GMO label, it won't serve the ends that you may expect from a little extra knowledge. It will be misleading. You will be led to think that the non-GMO products are safer than the GMO products, and it is absolutely not true.

You know, if you are proud of and certain the stuff is okay, you can put your name on it...like so many produce crops..Chiquita for example. They are confident their bananas are okay. If you have any doubt you don't have to buy that brand. It is not a burden so much as it is a responsibility of the producer to let buyers know what they are eating. Industrialization of agriculture has produced a society of sheep willing to eat about anything. You're right in there with them.

All ordinary bananas for sale are from the same strain, there's no issue of telling them apart or cross-pollination or the like. The headaches that apply to grain don't apply to bananas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seeing as it is indicated that ..."there are health hazards linked to the ingestion of diets containing genetically modified components"

And if true, that would indicate that non-GM corn should be tested because...?

You need to see if the non-GMO version has the same problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there any junk that isn't beneath you to try to peddle, so long as it has the conclusion that you agree with?

The experimental material consisted of a laboratory diet of mainly 60% yellow maize and 34% soybeans. The major nutritional contents of the laboratory diet were 22% protein, 3.48% fat, and 3.71% fiber. Currently, GM varieties of yellow maize and soybeans are produced for animal feed (Nowicki et al., 2010). Another well-balanced diet containing wheat, with the same nutritional value as the laboratory diet, was used as the non-GM diet.

In other words, the experimental group got GM maize and soy, the "control" group got non-GMO wheat. Extremely unscientific to have that kind of variation between the two test groups, which introduces all kinds of potential confounding variables other than GMO.

You can further tell it's junk when they generalize about all GMOs from this single "test", something which no scientist with any credibility whatsoever would do:

there are health hazards linked to the ingestion of diets containing genetically modified components

Oh, boy, that's damning. They're morons. Too bad degrees don't get revoked for things like this.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems like what the safety studies do as well.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514000568

This study claimed to show that the GMO was safe, yet they fed the control group GMO as well. Go figure.
That was a study funded by DuPont.

Am I missing something in skimming through the file?

It looks like they tested 6 groups--GMO + herbicide, GMO without herbicide and 4 non-GMO strains.

 

[tupac chopra]

Am I missing something in skimming through the file?

It looks like they tested 6 groups--GMO + herbicide, GMO without herbicide and 4 non-GMO strains.

No because the authors don't tell us that! Whcih makes one wonder how often this sort of thing happens in "safety studies".
The farce of GMO industry safety studies

Séralini's team analysed the laboratory rodent diet used in the DuPont experiment, which was obtained from a well-known company called Purina. They obtained the same type of feed from Purina and found that it was contaminated with 18% of Roundup-tolerant maize NK603 and 14.9% of GM Bt maize MON810. They also found that the feed contained residues of glyphosate and AMPA (the main metabolite of glyphosate). So although the control rats weren't eating the GM canola under test, they were eating other GMOs with the same glyphosate-tolerant trait, as well as residues of the pesticide that the GMOs are grown with. In plain English, the study did not compare rats fed a GM diet with rats fed a non-GM diet, but rats fed one type of GMO plus pesticides with rats fed similar GMOs plus pesticides.

Séralini and colleagues state, "the uncontrolled presence of pesticide residues and other GMOs make the study inconclusive". They add that according to the criteria of the FCT editor Hayes, the study should be retracted.

Séralini's team, in contrast, did control for GMOs and pesticides in the diets used for their chronic toxicity study. So their study accurately tested for the effects of GM NK603 maize and Roundup herbicide – and the effects of organ damage and hormonal disruption found in the treated rats were real.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem with the Luddites is that they want to say Genetic modification is some kind of trait. I see the same problem with religionists in the 'argument from design'. GM is not a trait, it is a process. The 'was GM' is not expressed in the species. There is no 'GM'ness a thing can have other than through observation of history; it is not expressed in the state of a thing. It is metadata.

The only thing you can come down on, or make any judgements on are specific products and byproducts of the genetic machine. And anything that has been put there through GM is required to go through a lengthy oversight process that no other trait is forced to go through, even when we already had eaten things with that exact genetic expression (see: golden rice) elsewhere.

 

[arkirk]

You know, if you are proud of and certain the stuff is okay, you can put your name on it...like so many produce crops..Chiquita for example. They are confident their bananas are okay. If you have any doubt you don't have to buy that brand. It is not a burden so much as it is a responsibility of the producer to let buyers know what they are eating. Industrialization of agriculture has produced a society of sheep willing to eat about anything. You're right in there with them.

All ordinary bananas for sale are from the same strain, there's no issue of telling them apart or cross-pollination or the like. The headaches that apply to grain don't apply to bananas.

You make far too much of the difficulty of labeling and are SELLING IGNORANCE. We already have labeling requirements for food. This would be just one more entry on an already required label...not at all difficult to accomplish.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OR you could just pay the slightest bit of attention to where your suppliers are getting their stocks and have them specify exactly what kind of foodstocks they're selling you.

The problem is that you have to keep them separate. That means carefully cleaning out any container before it's used to haul a different variety.

Also known as "Compliance with existing labeling laws."

Also known as "Not being an imbecile."

Existing labeling laws have no such requirement.

It's obvious the costs are high.

And yet our food is still relatively affordable despite those "high costs" that result from listing the ingredients used in products.

The items are commodities. You are not required to list every detail, the name of the ingredient is enough--there's no requirement to list the impurities that are left behind from whatever it came from. (And, yes, this can matter to some people who are sensitive to the origin material from which it was extracted.)

You're making the claim that a product that was manufactured using RR Soybeans would cost more than a non-RR product PURELY because the RR Soybean product has to list RR Soybeans on its ingredient list.

THAT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.

We aren't saying that. We are saying it would be a lot more expensive to accurately label whether soybeans were RR or not--the price of all soybeans would go up.

But of course I know you're either going to double down on that claim or change the subject altogether, because you're You.

I'm not changing the topic or engaging in personal attacks.

What's hard is to pin down the costs.

It's not hard at all.

"Soybeans"
"Genetically modified Soybeans."

Count the extra letters and calculate the value of the ink.

Thus showing you have no idea of the cost and apparently didn't even read the article discussing some of the costs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We don't need anything more than some sort of symbol that informs us "this product contains GMO's. Only an idiot would have trouble complying with it. We are not asking them to breakdown percentages by weight or anything like that. Just tell us if we are eating GMO's. Surely the makers know what they are making and can label it. I think Monsanto's fight against labeling is an attempt to keep any negative results a mystery as long as possible. They know they are over the line and are just doing like the tobacco and asbestos people did...clouding the issue with phony economic arguments.

If you're going to be mad I suggest being mad at your own ignorance.

Just because you don't see the logistics costs and won't read the article that showed some of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Jarhyn]

All ordinary bananas for sale are from the same strain, there's no issue of telling them apart or cross-pollination or the like. The headaches that apply to grain don't apply to bananas.

You make far too much of the difficulty of labeling and are SELLING IGNORANCE. We already have labeling requirements for food. This would be just one more entry on an already required label...not at all difficult to accomplish.

It's next to impossible to accomplish. You obviously don't know how a grain elevator works. Most grain elevators are 'this elevator takes wheat shapes' or 'this elevator takes corn shapes'. Or the like. Everyone throws their grain in and takes an equal sized chunk out. Whose grain is GM? Do we then restrict who puts what into which elevator? That's a logistics hurdle, especially since grain elevators tend to be few and far between.

Then we have the supplier problem. Now that nobody knows which grain belongs to who, or what's even in it, we go to market. We say 'I have corn shapes here'. Someone you sold the futures to takes the corn away and puts it with all the other corn, and then bags it. The fiddling over who sold what corn to who is a nightmare. You night as well be asking if there was any kidney in the pink goop that your chicken nuggets came from. You can only make guarantees when you keep the supply chains apart from the very beginning. If you don't isolate supply chains, you are guaranteed to be serving up something that's been genetically modified.

The only people who DO that are the non-GMO producers who already label.

 

[bilby]

No because the authors don't tell us that! Whcih makes one wonder how often this sort of thing happens in "safety studies".
The farce of GMO industry safety studies

Séralini's team analysed the laboratory rodent diet used in the DuPont experiment, which was obtained from a well-known company called Purina. They obtained the same type of feed from Purina and found that it was contaminated with 18% of Roundup-tolerant maize NK603 and 14.9% of GM Bt maize MON810. They also found that the feed contained residues of glyphosate and AMPA (the main metabolite of glyphosate). So although the control rats weren't eating the GM canola under test, they were eating other GMOs with the same glyphosate-tolerant trait, as well as residues of the pesticide that the GMOs are grown with. In plain English, the study did not compare rats fed a GM diet with rats fed a non-GM diet, but rats fed one type of GMO plus pesticides with rats fed similar GMOs plus pesticides.

Séralini and colleagues state, "the uncontrolled presence of pesticide residues and other GMOs make the study inconclusive". They add that according to the criteria of the FCT editor Hayes, the study should be retracted.

Séralini's team, in contrast, did control for GMOs and pesticides in the diets used for their chronic toxicity study. So their study accurately tested for the effects of GM NK603 maize and Roundup herbicide – and the effects of organ damage and hormonal disruption found in the treated rats were real.

Seralini is a crank; his study didn't accurately test for anything - it has been debunked repeatedly, and your persistence in clinging to it as though it were valid does you no credit.

Roundup is one of the least toxic herbicides ever developed. It is less toxic than many pesticides commonly used in 'Organic' farming; and it is less toxic than many substances that are essential to human health - for example, common table salt is more toxic than Glyphosate (Glyphosate acute oral LD50 in the rat is 5,600 mg/kg - Source - compared to only 3,000 mg/kg for Sodium Chloride - Source (pdf)).

Oral LD50 values of pyrethrins in rats range from 200 mg/kg to greater than 2,600 mg/kg (Source) - still more toxic than table salt or Glyphosate even at the low toxicity end of the range (There is a wide range of toxicity levels because of variations in the 'natural' source and in the formulations used). Pyrethrins are widely used in Organic farming, as they are 'natural'.

It is unwise to get all of (or indeed, any of) your information on the validity of scientific studies from gmwatch.org, an organisation that has repeatedly demonstrated incompetence in making such assessments.

 

[arkirk]

You make far too much of the difficulty of labeling and are SELLING IGNORANCE. We already have labeling requirements for food. This would be just one more entry on an already required label...not at all difficult to accomplish.

It's next to impossible to accomplish. You obviously don't know how a grain elevator works. Most grain elevators are 'this elevator takes wheat shapes' or 'this elevator takes corn shapes'. Or the like. Everyone throws their grain in and takes an equal sized chunk out. Whose grain is GM? Do we then restrict who puts what into which elevator? That's a logistics hurdle, especially since grain elevators tend to be few and far between.

Then we have the supplier problem. Now that nobody knows which grain belongs to who, or what's even in it, we go to market. We say 'I have corn shapes here'. Someone you sold the futures to takes the corn away and puts it with all the other corn, and then bags it. The fiddling over who sold what corn to who is a nightmare. You night as well be asking if there was any kidney in the pink goop that your chicken nuggets came from. You can only make guarantees when you keep the supply chains apart from the very beginning. If you don't isolate supply chains, you are guaranteed to be serving up something that's been genetically modified.

The only people who DO that are the non-GMO producers who already label.

You are mighty unparticular in what you eat aren't you? You also seem to have an affinity for GMO's. I agree there will be costs. It is up to the producers to keep track of what they produce. Have you ever seen a label on a candy bar or a cookie package..."Processed in facilities that also are used for peanuts and peanut products?" The candy bar is not a peanut containing product, but still it bears that label. The public's interest should supercede the interests of agribusiness. Your real argument is that government cannot be allowed in any case to interfere with the profits of industrial agriculture.

 

[bilby]

It's next to impossible to accomplish. You obviously don't know how a grain elevator works. Most grain elevators are 'this elevator takes wheat shapes' or 'this elevator takes corn shapes'. Or the like. Everyone throws their grain in and takes an equal sized chunk out. Whose grain is GM? Do we then restrict who puts what into which elevator? That's a logistics hurdle, especially since grain elevators tend to be few and far between.

Then we have the supplier problem. Now that nobody knows which grain belongs to who, or what's even in it, we go to market. We say 'I have corn shapes here'. Someone you sold the futures to takes the corn away and puts it with all the other corn, and then bags it. The fiddling over who sold what corn to who is a nightmare. You night as well be asking if there was any kidney in the pink goop that your chicken nuggets came from. You can only make guarantees when you keep the supply chains apart from the very beginning. If you don't isolate supply chains, you are guaranteed to be serving up something that's been genetically modified.

The only people who DO that are the non-GMO producers who already label.

You are mighty unparticular in what you eat aren't you? You also seem to have an affinity for GMO's. I agree there will be costs. It is up to the producers to keep track of what they produce. Have you ever seen a label on a candy bar or a cookie package..."Processed in facilities that also are used for peanuts and peanut products?" The candy bar is not a peanut containing product, but still it bears that label. The public's interest should supercede the interests of agribusiness. Your real argument is that government cannot be allowed in any case to interfere with the profits of industrial agriculture.

Peanuts are a demonstrated risk - people are known to have suffered ill-effects, up to and including death, from traces of peanut. GMOs, on the other hand, have not been implicated in a single case of human illness.

Labels warning that a product 'May contain peanuts' are therefore not as pointless as labels warning of GMO content; However given that many food manufacturers label foods as 'May contain peanuts' as a matter of course, without any tracking or testing to determine whether peanuts are present, the labels are still fairly useless - A 2007 study showed that 75% of cookies sold in Europe that carry the warning 'May contain peanuts' do not, in fact, contain any traces of peanut at all.

The only way to be sure that a product doesn't contain peanuts (or that it doesn't contain GMOs) is for there to be strict segregation of the products, and labelling of those items certified NOT to contain the material in question.

If you force food companies to label GMOs, then the CYA effect will result in the same situation we have with peanuts - everything not explicitly manufactured for the specialist 'no-nuts' or 'no-GMO' market will be labelled 'may contain...', and the information provided to the consumer will be no better than it is with only those specialist products bearing a label.

Government have a duty to interfere with the profits of industrial agriculture, where public health is served by doing so; but they should not be brow-beaten by fanatics into interfering when there is no public benefit whatsoever.

Peanuts are dangerous to some; so they are labelled. Show that GMOs are similarly dangerous, and I will join you in calling for labelling of GMOs too. But first, you must show cause. Otherwise we will have to label everything: 'May contain negative thought energy from disgruntled employees'; 'May have been packaged on equipment while Scorpio was in the ascendant'; 'May contain NSA mind-control nanobots'; etc.; etc.

It is not sufficient for some cranks to think that something might be harmful. First show that harm exists - as with peanuts. THEN you can demand a label.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's next to impossible to accomplish. You obviously don't know how a grain elevator works. Most grain elevators are 'this elevator takes wheat shapes' or 'this elevator takes corn shapes'. Or the like. Everyone throws their grain in and takes an equal sized chunk out. Whose grain is GM? Do we then restrict who puts what into which elevator? That's a logistics hurdle, especially since grain elevators tend to be few and far between.

Then we have the supplier problem. Now that nobody knows which grain belongs to who, or what's even in it, we go to market. We say 'I have corn shapes here'. Someone you sold the futures to takes the corn away and puts it with all the other corn, and then bags it. The fiddling over who sold what corn to who is a nightmare. You night as well be asking if there was any kidney in the pink goop that your chicken nuggets came from. You can only make guarantees when you keep the supply chains apart from the very beginning. If you don't isolate supply chains, you are guaranteed to be serving up something that's been genetically modified.

The only people who DO that are the non-GMO producers who already label.

You are mighty unparticular in what you eat aren't you? You also seem to have an affinity for GMO's. I agree there will be costs. It is up to the producers to keep track of what they produce. Have you ever seen a label on a candy bar or a cookie package..."Processed in facilities that also are used for peanuts and peanut products?" The candy bar is not a peanut containing product, but still it bears that label. The public's interest should supercede the interests of agribusiness. Your real argument is that government cannot be allowed in any case to interfere with the profits of industrial agriculture.

Except that some form of zealotry seems to have blinded you to the fact that I am not an anti-regulation stooge like some who will not here be named. Whil I do like that agriculture is becoming more industrialized (hooray cheaper food) there's a big difference between forcing a label on everything that contains soy, corn, potatoes, canola oil, and any of the many other things that will contain at least enough things as you consider GM. The only aisle to be spared in that usage case is the hippie aisle. I wonder who could possibly be in it to make money from that big scary label.

Second, and far more important, is the fact that there is no such thing as 'GM-ness' expressed in the material of the foods. There are traits. How they got there has no effect on the traits. You fail to grasp that 'GM-ness' is merely metadata, historical trivia that has no bearing on the traits themselves. You eat Golden Rice trait every time you eat a carrot. Every carrot everywhere contains that trait except a few inedible varieties that I doubt any sane person would even call 'carrots'. You eat BT trait all the time. It's in the soil. It's on your hands. If you've ever skinned your knee, the BT bacteria has probably entered your body. You have to show why how and why and if each specific GM is dangerous. There is no study that exists that could possibly come up with the conclusion GM is BAD, and retain academic integrity.

 

[tupac chopra]

No because the authors don't tell us that! Whcih makes one wonder how often this sort of thing happens in "safety studies".
The farce of GMO industry safety studies

Seralini is a crank;

Uh huh

his study didn't accurately test for anything

Yes is did. It just wasn't designed to test for tumors. -

it has been debunked repeatedly,

It has never been debunked. It was inconclusive with regard to cancer. But since it was never intended as a cancer study that's not surprising.

I notice to avoided dealing with the fact that Du Ponts fed GMO's to the control group.

 

[bilby]

Seralini is a crank;

Uh huh

his study didn't accurately test for anything

Yes is did. It just wasn't designed to test for tumors. -

it has been debunked repeatedly,

It has never been debunked. It was inconclusive with regard to cancer. But since it was never intended as a cancer study that's not surprising.

I notice to avoided dealing with the fact that Du Ponts fed GMO's to the control group.

I notice you have avoided dealing with a sizable fraction of my objections to your positions too. At least when I quote you, I do you the courtesy of not editing your posts; quoting only a fraction of what someone says could lead to allegations of quote mining, so it is a risky business if you care about your reputation.

I have nothing much to say about your claim (or should I say Seralini's claim) with respect to the DuPont study, beyond what I said in my earlier response - "It is unwise to get all of (or indeed, any of) your information on the validity of scientific studies from gmwatch.org, an organisation that has repeatedly demonstrated incompetence in making such assessments".

Claims made as retaliation for being caught, and by known liars, are not worth my time to even consider. Describing this claim as 'fact' is stretching the definition of the word 'fact' beyond its breaking point. I have dealt with this 'fact' with more respect than it deserves, just by mentioning it here, but if you insist on a more detailed rebuttal, I could point out that their claim is based on the bogus assumption that 'GM' is a trait, and not a technique - The same problem that Jarhyn has repeatedly mentioned in this thread (most recently here); Or I could mention that their claim is based on the unfounded belief that Glyphosate is highly toxic, which I rebutted in the post you are quoting (in an abridged form) here.