If you publish negative research about GMOs, you will be harassed, attacked, and discredited.

………………………………………………………………………………..
sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) 2013 study–
5 of 6 studies (all having conflict of interest–paid for by sugar beverage industry) found insufficient evidence for corollation to obesity. 10 of 12 studies (none having conflict of interest–not paid for by sugar beverage industry):  Among those reviews without any reported conflict of interest, 83.3% of the conclusions (10/12) were that SSB consumption could be a potential risk factor for weight gain.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
1-16-14 

A groundbreaking tax on sugar-sweetened beverages recently passed in Mexico could provide the evidence needed to justify similar laws across low- and middle-income countries and cities in the US, experts believe.

Campaigners and public health experts are watching closely to see what impact Mexico’s tax has on consumption. Mexico, where 32.8% of the population is obese, is now the country with the biggest weight problem in the world, according to the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation, overtaking the United States. The impact on health has been serious – 14% of the population has diabetes.   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/mexico-soda-tax-sugar-obesity-health

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

12-2-13.   In its November, 2012 issue, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. It was a highly important study as it was the first and, astonishingly, still the only long-term study under controlled conditions of possible effects of a diet of GMO Maize treated with Monsanto Roundup herbicide.

Seralini submitted his study results to the respected journal following a rigorous four-month review by scientific peers regarding methodology and such. Seralini’s group tested more than 200 rats of a diet of GMO corn over a period of a full two years at a cost of 3 million euro. The study was done in absolute secrecy to avoid industry pressure.

The publication created an atomic blast rocking the entire edifice of the GMO industry. Pictures of test rats with grotesque cancer tumors appeared in newspapers around the world.

Seralini’s group studied the effect of a Monsanto GMO maize diet on the rats for much longer than Monsanto had done in their study submitted to the EU European Food Safety Authority for approval. The group conducted its study for the full two-year average lifetime instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto study. The long-term span proved critical. The first tumors only appeared four to seven months into the study. In the industry’s earlier 90-day study on the same GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen, but were dismissed as “not biologically meaningful” by industry and EFSA alike.  It seems they were indeed very biologically meaningful.

The later study was also done with the highest number of rats ever measured in a standard GMO diet study. They tested “also for the first time three doses (rather than two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the Roundup-tolerant NK603 GMO maize alone, the GMO maize treated with Roundup, and Roundup alone at very low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed.”

Their findings were more than alarming. Mammary tumors developed in rats fed GMO corn and/or low levels of Roundup. From the paper “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” published in Food and Chemical Toxicology….

The EU Commission was on record stating that no independent non-GMO industry long-term studies were needed on animals to test their safety. The EU guidelines for testing stated, “Toxicological assessments on test animals are not explicitly required for the approval of a new food in the EU or the US.  http://rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Charity Katelin 21.12.2013 19:36

In the USA, since the use of GMO’s in the late 1990’s, the use of INSECTICIDES (per gov’t reports) has increased 90 times. Yeah, this is a chemical designed to kill things.

The use of herbicides increases 25% EACH year.    http://rt.com/op-edge/monsanto-gmo-studies-reports-588/

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Until Proven Otherwise, GMOs Aren’t Safe

There is too little data to call GMOs safe    by D. Strauss

June 5, 2013

Debra Strauss is an associate professor of business law at Fairfield University’s Charles F. Dolan School of Business and a Food and Drug Law Institute scholar.

Although we do not yet know about the safety and long-term effects of GM foods, the U.S. does not even require labeling of these products. As a result, consumers are not empowered with the opportunity to make informed choices about their own comfort level in purchasing and eating these foods.

The risks are unknown, especially due to the lack of long term studies in this area. Biotech companies own the patent rights to the genetically engineered seeds and their lack of sharing and disclosure of information has compounded the problem of conflicts of interest in research facilities by not allowing long term studies to take place.

In the face of scientific uncertainty, who should bear the risk of potential harm from GMOs? Unlike the international community, which prohibits the introduction of GM foods into the food supply until they are proven safe and requires labeling and post-market monitoring, the U.S. government takes the position that these foods are safe until proven otherwise.  http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-consumers-be-worried-about-genetically-modified-food/until-proven-otherwise-gmos-arent-safe

………………………………………………………………………..

oct 2011

Concern is growing over the health impact of growing and eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The World Health Organization has identified allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, gene transfer, outcrossing, GM genes introduced into the wild population, gene stability, susceptibility of non-target organisms (insects) and loss of biodiversity as potential issues of using GM seeds.

Currently, most health studies are done by GM companies themselves, which naturally have a conflict of interest that can lead to biased research or reporting.  Many countries such as Japan, Australia, China and the European Union recognize the possible risks and require mandatory labeling for products made with GMOs. The call for more comprehensive, independent research is growing.

However, the official position of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA)  is: There is no difference between GMOs and non-GMOs. These agencies have also proposed to the CODEX Alimentarius Commission (UN Food and Agriculture Organization), that no country should be able to require mandatory GMO labeling on food items. The FDA and USDA say that mandatory labeling of GMOs is “false, misleading, and deceptive, implying there is a difference between GMO and non-GMO ingredients.”  Ultimately, the FDA and USDA want to do away with product labeling standards overall, trusting corporations to maintain necessary health standards.  http://www.projectcensored.org/20-us-agencies-trying-to-outlaw-gmo-food-labelling/

………………………………………………………………………………………

 

Approving the GM potato: conflicts of interest, flawed science and fierce lobbying

 
 
<:ARTICLE id=node-news-795><:FOOTER>

November 7th 2011
In June 2009, experts from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)’s panel on genetically modified organisms (GMO panel) approved the use of an antibiotic marker gene for GMOs. This controversial decision was key for the European Commission in giving the green light in March 2010 to grow BASF’s genetically modified Amflora potato in the EU. CEO has investigated the background to this decision, including the controversial scientific advice provided by the European Food Safety Authority on the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes. CEO found that more than half of EFSA’s GMO panel had conflicts of interest, as defined by the OECD. Their advice, which contravened WHO guidelines, contributed to the approval of the GM potato – and is likely to lead to the approval of similar GM crops in the near future.

Amflora is now being cultivated in open fields in Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic, and two other GM plants (both cottons developed by Monsanto) containing the same antibiotic marker gene are in the pipeline waiting approval for cultivation.  http://corporateeurope.org/efsa/2011/11/approving-gm-potato-conflicts-interest-flawed-science-and-fierce-lobbying

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………
1-10-14 Emily Waltz’s article “Battlefield” highlights a disturbing trend: If you publish negative research about GMOs, you will be harassed, attacked, and discredited. Waltz’s article describes what happened to Emma Rosi-Marshall after publishing a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) on the effect of genetically modified Bt corn on the environment. Rosi-Marshall found that Bt corn negatively impacted larvae and flies in nearby streams. The article’s abstract stated that “widespread planting of Bt crops has unexpected ecosystem-scale consequences.”

What happened next surprised Rosi-Marshall. She was attacked by scientists expressing their strong objections to the experimental design and conclusion. They wrote not only to her but to PNAS and the funder of her research. She was attacked personally and accused of misconduct. Even Monsanto, the creator of Bt corn, wrote a critical six-page response to her paper. Dr. Henry I. Miller also weighed in on the controversy. Californians will remember that Miller, a former advisor to a tobacco front group, was featured in misleading ads in support of a “no” vote on Proposition 37, which would have labeled genetically engineered foods. Ironically, none of the criticisms called for more research on the effects of Bt crops on the environment, a testament to the unusual response and unscientific perspective of GMO proponents.

David Shubert from the Salk Institute had a similar experience when he implied, in Nature Biotechnology, that not enough was known about the unintended effects of adding genes to plants. Unfortunately, “he has given up trying to have a public discussion about the technology.”

In 2001, Dr. Ignacio Chapela from UC Berkeley published a paper in Nature with his discovery that the native Mexican maize had been contaminated with genes from GMO corn. He was also attacked and received so much criticism that Nature published an editor’s note claiming that there was not enough evidence to support the original paper. In 2009, new research confirmed that genes from genetically modified corn were found in Mexican maize. Chapela commented, “I have a very long experience now with young people coming to me to say that they are not going into this field precisely because they are discouraged by what they see.”

Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s research found that rats fed genetically modified potatoes had damage to their gastrointestinal tract and immune system. Pusztai went public with his findings and created a media frenzy in the UK. He was attacked, and his research was criticized for using too few rats, and opponents erroneously stated that the GMO potatoes were too low in protein. In fact, all of the animal feed was low in protein. Thus, any negative effect of a protein-deficient diet would be seen in all rats, not just in those consuming GMO potatoes. Pusztai was suspended from his position at the Rowett Research Institute and banned from talking publicly about the situation. Was his research repeated? Nope.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bartolotto/the-antiscience-behavior-_b_4566258.html

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s