Bill would require labeling of GMO foods

[level.eleven]

I'm confused.

In your opinion, what caused the giant tumors that are pictured?

I'm confused.

Didn't you read the link you posted the other day? If you did, then you would have realized you linked to 13 debunkings of the article you were meaning to post. Do you want to me to tell you or will you answer your own question?

You have to actually read your frantic google searches.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm confused.

Didn't you read the link you posted the other day? If you did, then you would have realized you linked to 13 debunkings of the article you were meaning to post. Do you want to me to tell you or will you answer your own question?

Are you talking about the comments? I saw a list of comments. "Letters to the editor" and such.

I want you to tell me. In the rats pictured by Rambone, what caused the giant tumors?

 

[rambone]

The study from which those pictures originated didn't publish how much they did feed the rats.

Feel free to post similar studies that you feel sufficient to prove the absence of side effects. You want to dismiss people's concerns, show the studies. I already asked for your sources upthread. You must have missed it.

I'm especially interested in long-term studies on humans. Surely the science gods have performed these tests to back up your claims. I'd like to know the cancer rates of the GMO consumers 10, 20 years down the road. Do you have any studies on the occurrence of long-term degenerative diseases? What about birth defects? What about long-term impact on the ecosystem? Impress me with science.

You are embarrassing yourself. Not exactly a new phenomenon for you, I realize, but this time you have the potential to cause actual harm to others.

I'm harming others by posting on the internet? WTF? Is this a conspiracy?

A perfect example of the lies and disinformation upon which the anti-science, anti-gmo, conspiracy crowd relies.

Do people have to subject themselves to every scientific fad in order to be pro-science? I work in a science-based field yet I don't volunteer myself to be the lab rat. Is that some kind of contradiction?

The fact is that you are making impossible claims about knowledge of an absence of side effects. Nobody, including yourself, knows the long-term effect of eating all these new corporate manipulations. Pro-science people would objectively admit that it is impossible to know the outcome of converting a vast majority of the food supply to various genetic modifications. And decades down the road, we still won't know because there have been no controls on the societal experiment.

 

[BigMatt]

Are you talking about the comments? I saw a list of comments. "Letters to the editor" and such.

I want you to tell me. In the rats pictured by Rambone, what caused the giant tumors?

This is from the link that YOU posted.

"First the choice of the rat breed, Sprague–Dawley, the duration and the uncontrolled feeding used in the study. These animals were maintained for 24 months and fed ad-lib. This specific breed of rats is well known to be prone to develop cancer with age and especially when there is no dietary restriction. For example, Prejean et al. (1973) noted a spontaneous tumour incidence of 45% in 360 Sprague–Dawley rats (179 males and 181 females) in an 18-month series of carcinogenesis experiments. The percentage of female rats with tumours was almost double that of males. Durbin et al. (1966) reported a mean incidence of 71%, the peak incidence in normally aging rats were age-related with abrupt increases in the rate of development of mammary tumour, one occurring at about the 500th and the other at about the 660th day of life, with the median age at 671 ± 41 days. Harlan, the company that marketed the animals, describes the high incidence of 76% of mammary gland tumours (predominantly fibroademonas) in females on Life-span and Spontaneous Disease of Sprague-Dawley. Keenan et al. (1995) describes spontaneous tumours in up to 87% of females and up to 71% of males fed ad lib. Dietary restriction significantly reduced the incidence of tumours. Uncontrolled ad libitum feeding significantly contributes to a high variability and poor reproducibility of a study limiting its usefulness in risk assessment (in Keenan et al. (1999)). The number of rats in Séralini et al. (2012) developing tumours fall within the history of reported spontaneous tumour rate in this breed of rat. Séralini et al. even mention that control animals survived on average less than 24 months but it is not explained about their death in sufficient detail."

 

[trgore]

GMO corn loaded with poison
Biotech lies exposed: Genetically-modified corn contains practically no nutrients but is loaded with chemical poisons
19 countries have Banned GMO food shouldn't that tell us something!!

We know that tobacco is bad but they still label it!

I find this disturbing

GMO corn

We should have the RIGHT to know what we are eating!

Grow food not lawns

 

[steveh_131]

This is from the link that YOU posted.

"First the choice of the rat breed, Sprague–Dawley, the duration and the uncontrolled feeding used in the study. These animals were maintained for 24 months and fed ad-lib. This specific breed of rats is well known to be prone to develop cancer with age and especially when there is no dietary restriction. For example, Prejean et al. (1973) noted a spontaneous tumour incidence of 45% in 360 Sprague–Dawley rats (179 males and 181 females) in an 18-month series of carcinogenesis experiments. The percentage of female rats with tumours was almost double that of males. Durbin et al. (1966) reported a mean incidence of 71%, the peak incidence in normally aging rats were age-related with abrupt increases in the rate of development of mammary tumour, one occurring at about the 500th and the other at about the 660th day of life, with the median age at 671 ± 41 days. Harlan, the company that marketed the animals, describes the high incidence of 76% of mammary gland tumours (predominantly fibroademonas) in females on Life-span and Spontaneous Disease of Sprague-Dawley. Keenan et al. (1995) describes spontaneous tumours in up to 87% of females and up to 71% of males fed ad lib. Dietary restriction significantly reduced the incidence of tumours. Uncontrolled ad libitum feeding significantly contributes to a high variability and poor reproducibility of a study limiting its usefulness in risk assessment (in Keenan et al. (1999)). The number of rats in Séralini et al. (2012) developing tumours fall within the history of reported spontaneous tumour rate in this breed of rat. Séralini et al. even mention that control animals survived on average less than 24 months but it is not explained about their death in sufficient detail."

The researcher's response:

CRITICISM: Strain of rats used Sprague-Dawley (SD) is prone to tumours

RESPONSE: SD rats have been used in most animal feeding trials to evaluate the safety of GM foods, and their results have been used by the biotech industry to secure approval to market GM products. They were used in the 90-day feeding trial that was conducted by industry to evaluate the toxicity of NK603 GM maize as part of the application for approval within the EU. They were also used in the original glyphosate two-year toxicity studies conducted in 2002 for regulatory approval within the EU.

The industry standard for toxicity tests performed by industry for regulatory purposes is the international protocol set out by the OECD (Organisation for International Cooperation and Development). This says that long-term carcinogenicity studies should be performed with the same strain of rat as used in shorter mid-term experiments, because this allows effects seen in the shorter experiment to be tracked to see how they develop in the long-term experiment, without the confounding factor that would occur if a different strain of rat was employed. Therefore, based on the past use of SD rats in trials of GM food and glyphosate it was scientifically correct and consistent to use this strain in Prof Seralini's long-term study.

The rats that consumed NK603 GM maize and/or Roundup in Prof Seralini's trial had an incidence of tumours, which was not just significantly greater than the control rats but also also significantly greater than observed in previous studies of SD rats. The tumour incidence in the test groups in his study was overall around three times higher than that the normal rate observed in the Harlan Sprague Dawley rat strain he used, as reported in the literature (Brix et al., 2005) including in the largest study with 1329 Sprague Dawley female rats (Chandra et al., 1992).

Furthermore, the key is that there were both quantitative and qualitative differences in the tumours arising in control and test groups. In the control rats they appeared much later and at most there was one tumour per animal if at all. In the treated rats the tumours began to be detected much earlier (four months in males; seven months in females), grew much faster and many animals had two or even three tumours. Many animals in the test groups had to be euthanised under animal welfare rules due to the massive size of the tumours; none of the control animals had to be euthanised but died in their own time. One should not ignore these biological facts.

Just to illustrate the point by analogy. We know that a small proportion of people who never smoke get lung cancer. If you smoke, the rate/risk of getting lung cancer is about 12 times higher than if you don't smoke. The measurement is called a "relative risk". So, imagine that there is an ethnic group of people with a higher rate of naturally occurring lung cancer. We know that if people in that group smoke, their rate of lung cancer will still increase like everybody else.

 

[steveh_131]

Let's not miss this gem that rambone provided:

Perhaps more surprising, conventional food makers say the FDA has made it difficult for them to boast that their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

We know who holds the FDA in their back pocket. We need to put a stop to this. Using the FDA as your enforcer to stomp out the competition is unacceptable.

As long as they are doing this, why should we care if they are held to the same standards that they force upon their competitors?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

I'm confused.

Didn't you read the link you posted the other day? If you did, then you would have realized you linked to 13 debunkings of the article you were meaning to post. Do you want to me to tell you or will you answer your own question?

You have to actually read your frantic google searches.

I don't know if I am understanding your point clearly. Are you stating that GMO is 100% and there is no chance that it is causing any type of cancer from its use? Or are you stating that there hasn't been any concrete proof that it causes cancer?

 

[BigMatt]

Let's not miss this gem that rambone provided:



We know who holds the FDA in their back pocket. We need to put a stop to this. Using the FDA as your enforcer to stomp out the competition is unacceptable.

I do agree with this.

 

[BigMatt]

The researcher's response:

Excerpt from the method of the experiment:

" For each sex, one control group had access to plain water and standard diet from the closest isogenic non-transgenic maize control; six groups were fed with 11, 22 and 33% of GM NK603 maize either treated or not with R. The final three groups were fed with the control diet and had access to water supplemented with respectively 1.1 × 10−8% of R (0.1 ppb of R or 50 ng/L of glyphosate, the contaminating level of some regular tap waters), 0.09% of R (400 mg/kg, US MRL of glyphosate in some GM feed) and 0.5% of R (2.25 g/L, half of the minimal agricultural working dilution). "

The last group's water access was 2252ppm glyphosate. That is like drinking the mixture you spray on the weeds at your house all day every day for two years (which is close to the lifetime of a rat) - in rats that are already predisposed to tumors.

 

[steveh_131]

Excerpt from the method of the experiment:

" For each sex, one control group had access to plain water and standard diet from the closest isogenic non-transgenic maize control; six groups were fed with 11, 22 and 33% of GM NK603 maize either treated or not with R. The final three groups were fed with the control diet and had access to water supplemented with respectively 1.1 × 10−8% of R (0.1 ppb of R or 50 ng/L of glyphosate, the contaminating level of some regular tap waters), 0.09% of R (400 mg/kg, US MRL of glyphosate in some GM feed) and 0.5% of R (2.25 g/L, half of the minimal agricultural working dilution). "

The last group's water access was 2252ppm glyphosate. That is like drinking the mixture you spray on the weeds at your house all day every day for two years (which is close to the lifetime of a rat) - in rats that are already predisposed to tumors.

If the substance isn't a carcinogen, then who cares?

 

[rambone]

If the substance isn't a carcinogen, then who cares?

+1

There are no controlled limits on a person's real-world exposure. Some people eat corn-based products in every single meal. I want to know what high-exposures are capable of.

 

[BogWalker]

If the substance isn't a carcinogen, then who cares?

Actually dosage rates matter a lot. I suppose you don't touch alcohol, as it is a known carcinogen. That's in heavy doses though. Your social drinker isn't going to die of ethanol related cancers. But, why make such a distinction? You might also want to avoid diesel exhaust, gasoline, and anything containing BPA. They all cause cancer in ridiculously above average exposure rates as well.

 

[steveh_131]

Actually dosage rates matter a lot. I suppose you don't touch alcohol, as it is a known carcinogen. That's in heavy doses though. Your social drinker isn't going to die of ethanol related cancers. But, why make such a distinction? You might also want to avoid diesel exhaust, gasoline, and anything containing chlorine. They all cause cancer in ridiculously above average exposure rates as well.

And you'll find this corn in nearly everything that you eat.

I avoid sucking on exhaust pipes, bathing in gasoline, and heavy drinking. Wouldn't it be nice to know that we should be careful of something that is an ingredient in nearly everything we eat and drink?

 

[BogWalker]

And you'll find this corn in nearly everything that you eat.

I avoid sucking on exhaust pipes, bathing in gasoline, and heavy drinking. Wouldn't it be nice to know that we should be careful of something that is an ingredient in nearly everything we eat and drink?

Excessive dosage varies depending on the substance. All the cited study has proven is cancer prone mice shouldn't drink straight roundup.

Did you know drinking something on the order of 4 liters a day of Earl Grey tea can cause blurred vision, twitches, and muscular problems? This is well in excess of average consumption, but I suppose we should still label it as dangerous.

 

[VERT]

As it pertains to the herbicide "Round-Up". I just looked up the active ingredient Glyphosate in the Weed Science Society of America's Herbicide Handbook. It is not considered to be a carcinogen. Data was collected from 24 month feeding studies. (Sorry no way for me to link the info. It is in a good old fashion book sitting on my shelf.) Now the actual commercial formulations may have some toxicity due to the surfactants, but the Glyphosate technical has very low toxicity and is not a carcinogen. If Glyphosate is found in the grain it would be the technical and not the formulated product.

Interestingly enough a lot of the herbicides displaced by the use of "Round-Up Ready Technology" were nasty carcinogens and in some cases not fun to play with. Overall the use of new technologies is much cleaner and more environmentally sound.

As far as nutritional value of the grain or plants. There should be no difference. At the end of the day all DNA is made up of the same base pairs. Basically corn is corn, beans are beans. Trust me if you feed a pig/cow/chicken "GMO" corn they will do two things. 1) get fat & 2) poop.

The problem is not the "GMOs" per se. The problem is that to meet the demands of our consumer driven market we are producing cheap grain and that grain is being used to produce meat and low cost high fructose corn syrup. In a nut shell we are eating ourselves to death. I for one am not as healthy as I should be. Reason is that I eat way too much processed food/starchy/fatty food and don't exercise. Not a "GMO" issue but rather a cultural issue and laziness on my part.

Sorry guys but Monsanto is not evil. They are a company that wants profit, period, end of story. I used to work for them, may not have always agreed with them but they are not evil, just a company. They sell a product that the consumer wants. (In this case easy to produce commodities.) So if we start labeling food as organic or GMO free and the consumer wants to buy it at a premium then great! If farmers can see a profit from growing specialty/identity preserved products then awesome! If the consumer demands the product then somebody will produce it. Until then I will enjoy my steak and pasteurized milk.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As it pertains to the herbicide "Round-Up". I just looked up the active ingredient Glyphosate in the Weed Science Society of America's Herbicide Handbook. It is not considered to be a carcinogen. Data was collected from 24 month feeding studies. (Sorry no way for me to link the info. It is in a good old fashion book sitting on my shelf.) Now the actual commercial formulations may have some toxicity due to the surfactants, but the Glyphosate technical has very low toxicity and is not a carcinogen. If Glyphosate is found in the grain it would be the technical and not the formulated product.

Interestingly enough a lot of the herbicides displaced by the use of "Round-Up Ready Technology" were nasty carcinogens and in some cases not fun to play with. Overall the use of new technologies is much cleaner and more environmentally sound.

This is all nice, but again, the most important issue is the right to know what we are consuming, not so much the relative merits of any particular product--just exactly what it is.
As far as nutritional value of the grain or plants. There should be no difference. At the end of the day all DNA is made up of the same base pairs. Basically corn is corn, beans are beans. Trust me if you feed a pig/cow/chicken "GMO" corn they will do two things. 1) get fat & 2) poop.

The problem is not the "GMOs" per se. The problem is that to meet the demands of our consumer driven market we are producing cheap grain and that grain is being used to produce meat and low cost high fructose corn syrup. In a nut shell we are eating ourselves to death. I for one am not as healthy as I should be. Reason is that I eat way too much processed food/starchy/fatty food and don't exercise. Not a "GMO" issue but rather a cultural issue and laziness on my part.

Sorry guys but Monsanto is not evil. They are a company that wants profit, period, end of story. I used to work for them, may not have always agreed with them but they are not evil, just a company. They sell a product that the consumer wants. (In this case easy to produce commodities.) So if we start labeling food as organic or GMO free and the consumer wants to buy it at a premium then great! If farmers can see a profit from growing specialty/identity preserved products then awesome! If the consumer demands the product then somebody will produce it. Until then I will enjoy my steak and pasteurized milk.

This is all well and good. The problem is that the most significant issue is the right to know what we are being sold and expected to consume, not so much the relative merits of different products.

 

[VERT]

This is all well and good. The problem is that the most significant issue is the right to know what we are being sold and expected to consume, not so much the relative merits of different products.

OK I will help you out then. You are already buying and consuming these products and have been for nearly 20 years. Corn, soybean, cotton, rapeseed, sugarbeet are all crops that are now widely produced that benefited from biotechnology. Long story short the technology is widely used and everywhere. Probably the most significant advancement in agriculture since the tractor. People tend to pick on pest and herbicide resistance and it is true that these were the first products introduced. Simple reason is because these were traits that were marketable.

Relative Merit? How about plants that use less water or fertilizer or grain that produces Omega 3? This is technology that can greatly benefit people and the environment. The question is whether those benefits out way any potential negatives.

I get down on agriculture and what I do for a living. I see it, touch it, have to manage it every day. I am bored with the whole topic to be quite honest. Then I read a thread like this and I am think to myself that what I do is pretty cool. Often misunderstood but pretty cool none the less. Thank you guys!

 

[trgore]

if Monsanto is not evil why do they need HR 933 section 735?

 

[level.eleven]

if Monsanto is not evil why do they need HR 933 section 735?

They don't. The farmer does.

Come on, you can astroturf better than that.