Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

It was a joke directed at, and at the expense of, the alarmist attitude displayed by the (rabidly) anti-GMO people.

America has a pretty noticeable problem with obesity (it isn't alone), but I'm sure that if those people could spin it so that obesity is the result of GMOs in food, they would - they're already trying to pin other diseases on it, including cancer, (hence the "walking tumors" bit) so it's hardly a stretch. It's what alarmists do: freak out about shit not worth freaking out about, and try to make other people freak out about it too by blowing things WAY out of proportion.

Also, the pictures of rats you included in your post reminded me of that one particular zombie from L4D (linked in my second post).

Oh well, that's something quite universal and pretty human, I think, not specifically american.

While the results are initially shocking, there are a couple things here that make me very unwilling to accept them at face value.

For instance, the researchers apparently used a breed of laboratory rat that is prone to runaway mammary tumors, especially if it isn't given a strict diet. The enormous tumors they picture are not unknown in healthy specimens of this rat.

The researchers have also been acting a bit wierd - for instance, refusing to allow people to view the paper prior to actual publication unless they signed an NDA that would prevent them from seeking comment from other researchers on the work (although this may sound like scientists just protecting themselves from plagiarism, it's a apparently quite uncommon).

Ah, I was looking for any article on the bbc yersterday but couldnt find any. They finally posted one apparently. It is so funny to see how differently the subject is covered depending on the country, though I much prefer the BBC one since it is a lot more neutral than what we have here.

I was unaware of the problems mentionned with this kind of rat, though it seems a little hard to believe that they had no tumors at all with the control samples. The team also defends itself by saying that they used this kind of rat because it is the one we know the most, so if that is the case they are probably very aware of it. Of course, it means that those rats are basically far more sensitive to mammary tumors than humans. For the rest not really tied to mammary parts though...

I am pretty sure if they opered with NDAs it is precisely due to lobbies me think. When you see the shitstorm you get everytime you try to uncover something from the obscure dealings of Monsanto usually, it reminds me a lot the tobacco industry.

But all of this, especially the last part with all this "sensationalism", even if understandable when you want to touch the masses and to reach your goals, can also be detrimental to the credibility of your work, sadly.


"I think these are very important findings," commented Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at Kings College, London, who acted as an adviser to Seralini's team.

"At the very least, what this study highlights is: firstly, the need to test all GM crops in two-year, lifelong studies; and, secondly, when looking at testing the toxicity of herbicides/pesticides, we need to test the full agricultural formulation and not just the active ingredient."

^I think this guy pretty much nailed it. The idea is not to prove a theory here, or they would have needed more than their already decent 3M € budget with a lot more tests and wider samples, if possible on different species of mices and rats.

The current political battle in the EU is about banning all agricultural GMOs in open air following the precautionary principle. To avoid like Wannoah said above, things like DDT to happen.

And there also something else to keep in mind : it is not because it does or doesnt affect humans much that it doesnt affect the environnement as well. Considering how GMOs have already contamined central america and even south america countries where farmers are already complaining that their crops have breeded with GMOs...

[Milo Caman]

At last we start to see more of these studies. I find them particularily alarming since it has been almost 15 years now that GMOs are being widely used, 97% of them in north america. However it does not only concerns north america considering the produced pesticides are sold all around the world, as well as the remaining 3%.

Seeing more bad science is not a good thing.

When I see studies like this in a credible peer reviewed journal written in a neutral tone (Not the alarmist, almost journalistic rubbish the paper linked is written in) Then I might start worrying. There are interests in writing bias papers on both sides of every scientific argument, and GMO is no exception. It just seems that opposition to it doesn't have much experience hiding it in academic papers yet.

[Nmaro Makari]

I showed this report to my partner and asked for her opinion as a journalist. She told me that everything about how they present themselves is emotive and built to persuade, in this case that the GMO tested is unsafe with the implied sidenote that all GMO is bad. Point being, whoever presented the evidence on the site and wrote all the stuff on there is on the anti-GMO side and not even hiding it well.

But, we both conceded that neither of us were biologists so our criticism was therefore somewhat limited.

So, I met two of my friends the next day, one studying biology, and the other pharmacology. Inevitably, this report came up and they told me they simply didnt trust the report. An hours free time with internet and they showed me why:

- Wrong kind of rat. If my freinds did that in their work, they would barely pass. This is either a serious full-retard accident or deliberate.

- Concentrations of roundup far above anything actually used in industry.

- CRIIGEN continues to suppose that effects on cells in petri dishes transcribe automatically to effects on humans.

- The lead researcher, Prof Serelini, seems to have made killing GMO his personal crusade. Bias, corruption of scientific method, etc.

- Complete ignorance of bioaccumulation in methodology.

- Too media savvy. Normally, scientists release their research to the right journal, then thats it. This was released with far too much fanfare. The team wants to whip up a storm and knew exactly how to go about it.

- Its not unusual for journalists to be given lab studies under embargo. What IS unusual is that they have to sign an NDA that they wont show it to any independent scientist, research body etc. The lack of peer review of Serelini's paper is astounding.

- Questionable backers. Not to say that Serelini is being funded by Al-quaeda, or taking bribes from the mafia, but more that the study has backers with a clear agenda, i.e. Sustainable Food Trust UK.

- It just happens to be published close to a major referendum in California on labelling GM food. Normally, just coincidence. Given all the above, however, I'm far more sceptical.


In conclusion, this study stinks from a mile off. I'll admit, I have strong personal bias towards GMO, but while I'd normally concede that this study has a point, I just cant take it as serious science anymore.

Sorry to say Lyn, but this study has a clear agenda and they are playing to the "Look at us, we're not monsanto!" tune.

[Lyn Farel]

I never said I really liked their tone either. I also took the time to read it again in french this time, and this has not been perfectly translated either. Superlatives are not the same, but overall, I don't like their way of stating that's its serious, alarming, or else, like if they felt the need to precise it. Especially the last part about their book/movie.

However on the wrong kind of rat, I am very mitigated. It seems to me that people absolutely want to read what they want to see. It is kind of true to point out that these rats are usually subject to mammary mutations. This is what happened with female subjects. However, other mutations appeared, especially on males, that were not mammary related. Are they subject to any kind of mutations ordinary ? I doubt it, or that would be kindof a wrecked species. Well, I am no biologist anyway, so I may be wrong, but both sides seem to me pretty biased and subjective in their approaches.

On the pesticide concentrations, they state that these are the same as seen in the environnement. People should make up their minds : what I see is one side stating something, and another stating it is not true. What the fuck is wrong with scientists ? I'll tell you what : lobbies behind, on both sides.

If I posted that thread it is not to point this study as a true, righteous one, but one in a few that went actually in the right direction, as bad as they can be sugarcoated. Like the last study I posted on marijuana heavy users that was quite meh in itself on some points, I didnt do it to prove that marijuana is bad m'kay (I don't think it is), just to draw the attention on it.

Also, I just tend to find myself often at odds with english culture, where apparently organizations like greenpeace seem to be seen as utterly stupid. Never really understood why, even if I don't agree on everything with them.

[Kala]

Also, I just tend to find myself often at odds with english culture, where apparently organizations like greenpeace seem to be seen as utterly stupid. Never really understood why, even if I don't agree on everything with them.

Agreed.  This made me blink a bit:

However, this is inevitably going to be hijacked by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other backwards-thinking organisations

Not sure why having an enviromentalist ethos is necessarily "backwards-thinking"...

[Nmaro Makari]

Also, I just tend to find myself often at odds with english culture, where apparently organizations like greenpeace seem to be seen as utterly stupid. Never really understood why, even if I don't agree on everything with them.

Agreed.  This made me blink a bit:

However, this is inevitably going to be hijacked by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other backwards-thinking organisations

Not sure why having an enviromentalist ethos is necessarily "backwards-thinking"...

Neither Greenpeace nor FotE are emperor of the term environmentalist.

I said that because I believe with reasonable grounds, that both organisations among others are anti-science, pro-ruralism, and hurt the environmentalist cause greatly, opposing new methods and technology on principle, whipping up unneccesary public anger and forcing governments to use more fossil fuels and further pollute our world.

To me, theres precious little environmentalist about them.

[Louella Dougans]

It's called dark green ecology, or deep ecology.

It relates to reducing the impact humans have on the environment.

[spoiler]by reducing the number of people, a lot.[/spoiler]

[Nmaro Makari]

It's called dark green ecology, or deep ecology.

It relates to reducing the impact humans have on the environment.

[spoiler]by reducing the number of people, a lot.[/spoiler]

*bing*

Pretty much sumarises the major gripe I had with the Greenpeace stall at University. When Deep Ecology gets mentionned its all smiles and nods.

[Lyn Farel]

I don't know FotE but I didnt know greenpeace were promoting such things...

The only real thing I am not sure to appreciate with them is their anti civilian-nuclear stance : as much as I agree in the principle, it remains "more or less" clean compared to carbon based energy and we have yet to find something else to use instead (like nuclear fusion). They seem to always take Germany as an example of a country that totally stopped using nuclear power 20 years ago and forget conveniently that they got back to those incredibly dirty coal powerplants. That is dark green ecology, yes.