Originally posted by MDDoxs
I know i am probably going to catch flak for this but...
I consider myself among the camp in support of genetic modification. Let me add that though i am in favor of genetic modification, i only support it for the greater good of our species.
Genetically modified foods, in a ideal sense, could potentially yield larger volumes of crops, perhaps provide more nutritional foods and things of the like.
Additionally, the potential for the genetic manipulation of the human genome has almost limitless potential and is inevitable in my opinion.
Now as for the genetic modification as per the OP, it is pure exploitation of current scientific means to improve the economic bottom line. Assuming the study is yielding accurate results, Monsanto has obviously rushed into things far to quickly and could potentially harm the global population.
I will conclude this post by reiterating that genetic modification will one day be reliable enough to potentially solve world hunger, disease and human suffering and companies like Monsanto are unfortunately building a bad reputation for this field.
edit on 19-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)
Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.
"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."
Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns.
"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment.
David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. He added that the study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.
Are the findings reliable?
There is little to suggest they are. Tom Sanders, head of nutritional research at King's College London, says that the strain of rat the French team used gets breast tumours easily, especially when given unlimited food, or maize contaminated by a common fungus that causes hormone imbalance, or just allowed to age. There were no data on food intake or tests for fungus in the maize, so we don't know whether this was a factor.
But didn't the treated rats get sicker than the untreated rats?
Some did, but that's not the fully story. It wasn't that rats fed GM maize or herbicide got tumours, and the control rats did not. Five of the 20 control rats – 25 per cent – got tumours and died, while 60 per cent in "some test groups" that ate GM maize died. Some other test groups, however, were healthier than the controls.
Toxicologists do a standard mathematical test, called the standard deviation, on such data to see whether the difference is what you might expect from random variation, or can be considered significant. The French team did not present these tests in their paper. They used a complicated and unconventional analysis that Sanders calls "a statistical fishing trip".
Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh, UK, adds that in any case, there should be at least as many controls as test rats – there were only 20 of the former and 80 of the latter – to show how variably tumours appear. Without those additional controls, "these results are of no value", he says.
Why would scientists do this?
The research group has long been opposed to GM crops. It claimed in 2010 to have found evidence of toxicity in tests by the GM-crops giant Monsanto of its own Roundup-resistant maize. Other toxicologists, however, said the supposedly damning data revealed only insignificant fluctuations in the physiology of normal rats.
French blogger Anton Suwalki, who campaigns against pseudoscience, has a long list of complaints about the group, including what he calls "fantasy statistics".
Originally posted by Maxmars
Couldn't resist another paragraph...
it appears our GMO defenders in my earlier post are almost ready to claim "conspiracy"
Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by eLPresidente
Ummm how do you know I have read up on global population growth and have seen correlations in relation to food consumption?
There is a point when the global population will exceed the level in which we can sustain it. Genetically modified foods are one viable option to feed everyone. I did not say it was the only option sir.
What suggestions do you have?