• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

GMO Foods; What's the general scientific opinion?

You're saying that none of the 312 papers on GE food/feed consumption are useful?

ETA: And repeating that study with the same tumor-prone transgenic rats would be an appropriate model organism?
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
"Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. "
Click to expand...
Been waiting to see the new study with those flaws corrected. Hasn't been one yet.
Click to expand...

As for not being incorrect, it is strictly true but only in the sense of not even being wrong. A replication with well done methodology is not going to come from Seralini because that's not what he does. It is unlikely that they will be repeated by anyone else either because, contrary to what is meant to be implied by the face saving language by the editors in that statement, there's no smoke to be found in that study.
 
catsmate1 said:
Nope. Peer review all the way.

Correct. The dubious science was torn apart and the paper eventually withdrawn, with Séralini making legal threats. I brought up his dubious connections in response to the "Big Pharma" reference.
His work fails on it's poor science, apart from the bias and possible fraud.


An excellent summary, though I have one nit to pick. Under Mutation breeding (and I'd probably include polyploidy there too) it omits sweet corn.
ETA: the Mutant Variety Database
Click to expand...

No doubt many, many others could be included. While I cannot speak for the author, it is clearly not meant to be exhaustive.
 
Diogenes said:
You're saying that none of the 312 papers on GE food/feed consumption are useful?

ETA: And repeating that study with the same tumor-prone transgenic rats would be an appropriate model organism?
Click to expand...
I don't recall saying either of those things. You might want to try rereading what I said.

I await the retracted trial which was inconclusive to be redone properly in a scientifically rigorous way that has conclusive results.
Click to expand...

But I will add that if one of those 312 papers has already done it, please post it. I suppose "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" could be wrong, and studies were already done. If so, again, please post it. If "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" is correct and no similar feeding trials were done (except that inconclusive trial). Then I am back to:

I await the retracted trial which was inconclusive to be redone properly in a scientifically rigorous way that has conclusive results.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cosmicaug said:
If I recall correctly, you are also awaiting the replication of the Carman/Vlieger study. Are you also awaiting the replication of the Seralini 2005 paper? It's also really bad.
Click to expand...
I'd settle for any long term feeding trial done properly in a scientifically rigorous way that has conclusive results. In fact it would even be nice to see a short term feeding trial done properly in a scientifically rigorous way that has conclusive results.

All those studies have flaws, but I have yet to see the trials done properly in a scientifically rigorous way.

All I ever get from GMO apologists is those trials were flawed (I agree), but there is no need to do a similar trial properly. Which is exactly what the REVIEW ARTICLE
An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research says as well:
once the compositional equivalence
has been verified, little can be added by the other types
of analysis, and nutritional equivalence can be assumed
Click to expand...

I am not real big on assumptions in scientific analysis of safety in our food supply. Just do the trials, publish the results and the issue is over for me.
 
What animal would be the appropriate model for a similar study (one in which you'd accept the results of regardless of what those results actually were)? I'm asking for more than one reason, but one reason is that I don't actually do this research, I do genetic studies with a fungal pathogen and I have a good idea of what's considered sufficient in my area for disease index studies and the like.

What's the appropriate level of evidence for GMO food/feed studies?

(You did indicate a familiarity with those studies cited in the link I provided. Apparently you meant just that review article, apologies.)
 
Red Baron Farms said:
...
I am not real big on assumptions in scientific analysis of safety in our food supply. Just do the trials, publish the results and the issue is over for me.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that assumption isn't just about how when you can detect a certain molecule and find that it is identical to the molecule it has been engineered to be that it will act the same way as that molecule, being identical?
 
Diogenes said:
Are you sure that assumption isn't just about how when you can detect a certain molecule and find that it is identical to the molecule it has been engineered to be that it will act the same way as that molecule, being identical?
Click to expand...
I am sure. Read it again. For a GMO that produces a vitamin, like Golden Rice, feed trials are done.

The high sensitivity
of rapidly growing animals to toxic compounds may
also help to detect unintended effects.
Click to expand...

But when the GMO produces a crytoxin that same potential for "unintended effects" is not tested in feeding trials.

But hey, I could be wrong, I haven't had time to actually read all 2000 studies. I have read quite a few, but not even close to 2000. I am relying on your reference to guide me. It claims animal feeding studies are not required and are not done when it involves "GE crops modified for input traits (e.g. herbicide or insect resistance)"

That means all we have are a few flawed studies with inconclusive results, but no feeding trials done properly in a scientifically rigorous way that has conclusive results.

So once again for the umpteenth time:

I await the retracted trial which was inconclusive to be redone properly in a scientifically rigorous way that has conclusive results.
Click to expand...
 
Red Baron Farms said:
....no feeding trials done properly in a scientifically rigorous way that has conclusive results.

So once again for the umpteenth time:
Click to expand...

What is the appropriate scientifically rigorous way to do a feeding trial? Only asked for the 2nd time and without as much acrimony, I hope.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I am sure. Read it again. For a GMO that produces a vitamin, like Golden Rice, feed trials are done.
Click to expand...

Because they are not going for nutritional equivalency in the case of an enhanced vitamin GMO. They need to show how effective the extra vitamin is.

"The 90-day rodent feeding test is generally performed when the composition is modified substantially or if there are indications of potential unintended effects."

If they are not trying to modify the nutrition, they test the toxicity and allergenic properties of the new gene and "experience suggests that, once the compositional equivalence has been verified, little can be added by the other types of analysis, and nutritional equivalence can be assumed."
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I would actually be happy with anything that stands up to peer review.
Click to expand...

On what exact strain/construct/GE product?

Sorry, just trying to discern if you're running a "no true study" or have something specific actually in mind before I start delving those 300-some-odd currently peer-reviewed GMO food/feed safety studies as they all meet that criterion already.
 
Diogenes said:
On what exact strain/construct/GE product?

Sorry, just trying to discern if you're running a "no true study" or have something specific actually in mind before I start delving those 300-some-odd currently peer-reviewed GMO food/feed safety studies as they all meet that criterion already.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. You miss my context entirely. Quite the opposite. I am actually willing to accept almost anything. Problem is I have seen nothing. Not one. So far all I have seen are assumptions, instead of feeding trials. Surely there are feeding trials somewhere? Yes? Problem is that in three years of looking and asking everyone, No one has sent me a link to a single feeding trial on "GE crops modified for input traits (e.g. herbicide or insect resistance)" except flawed studies like the Seralini 2005 paper. Not a single person has ever sent me a similar feeding study on Bt and/or Glyphosate GMOs that show they are safe. I have asked in several threads here, and I have asked in other forums as well.

It is not that I am rejecting studies, it is that I haven't seen as of yet any studies at all. How can you reject something that doesn't even exist as far as you know?

People have sent me long lists of studies. I even waded through them one by one for days on end. Problem is after countless hours, I found the lists people gave me were not feeding studies of the GMOs. They were all sorts of other types of studies. Not one of them involved actually raising an animal on a GMO, (with the exception of nutritional GMOs like Golden Rice), and concluding they have no unforeseen side effects, or that they are safe, or even that the safety risks are outweighed by the benefits. They haven't sent any feeding studies at all.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
...Not a single person has ever sent me a similar feeding study on Bt and/or Glyphosate GMOs that show they are safe. I have asked in several threads here, and I have asked in other forums as well....

People have sent me long lists of studies....Not one of them involved actually raising an animal on a GMO, (with the exception of nutritional GMOs like Golden Rice), and concluding they have no unforeseen side effects, or that they are safe.
Click to expand...

Um.

...

So...is that generally how you do your own literature review?

...

So...you've rejected this study, why?

http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Hammond-Feeding-Value-Soybeans-1996.pdf
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Absolutely not. You miss my context entirely. Quite the opposite. I am actually willing to accept almost anything. Problem is I have seen nothing. Not one. So far all I have seen are assumptions, instead of feeding trials. Surely there are feeding trials somewhere? Yes? Problem is that in three years of looking and asking everyone, No one has sent me a link to a single feeding trial on "GE crops modified for input traits (e.g. herbicide or insect resistance)" except flawed studies like the Seralini 2005 paper. Not a single person has ever sent me a similar feeding study on Bt and/or Glyphosate GMOs that show they are safe. I have asked in several threads here, and I have asked in other forums as well.

It is not that I am rejecting studies, it is that I haven't seen as of yet any studies at all. How can you reject something that doesn't even exist as far as you know?

People have sent me long lists of studies. I even waded through them one by one for days on end. Problem is after countless hours, I found the lists people gave me were not feeding studies of the GMOs. They were all sorts of other types of studies. Not one of them involved actually raising an animal on a GMO, (with the exception of nutritional GMOs like Golden Rice), and concluding they have no unforeseen side effects, or that they are safe, or even that the safety risks are outweighed by the benefits. They haven't sent any feeding studies at all.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
Does this qualify?
Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available.
Click to expand...
 
Red Baron Farms said:
It might. Do you have a list of those 12 studies? Are any of them on GE crops modified for input traits like BT and/or Glyphosate resistance?
Click to expand...
RBF, this not my passion in life. I just did a quick Google search for "gmo corn long term feeding trials". This link to a lit review was the first one that came up. I clicked on it, scanned through it quickly, and it appears to be reporting on the kinds of studies you can't seem to find, but I don't know what you're looking for!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom