Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

EFSA finds GM-study of insufficient quality

page: 1
4

log in

join


posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Ouch!


From the actual EFSA report (in the 2nd link above):


Considering that the study as reported in the Séralini et al. (2012) publication is of inadequate design, analysis and reporting, EFSA finds that it is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessment.


That's about as savage as scientific criticism gets AFAIK - "..inadequate design, analysis and reporting..." - so they say it was a badly designed experiment in eth first palce, the analysis of what data they DID get was not good enough, and then how they reported that poor analysis was bad as well!!

www.allaboutfeed.net[/url ]
(visit the link for the full news article)

[url=http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2910.pdf]Full report
edit on 16-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Whether GMO's are good or bad, I believe people have a right to know what they are purchasing and putting in their bodies! The fact that the GMO industry is fighting against people having that right, is in fact enough evidence for me to question its so called benefits to society!

Most people today buy GMO products purely out of ignorance to the fact of not having a choice! Let the people decide what they want to put into their own bodies! I don't see any government officials eating GMO's at the Whitehouse! Yep, no GMO's are being eaten there!



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Is there any link to the actual study so I can see for myself how accurate these claims of shortcomings and unscientific data are?

If what they are saying is true then the study was poor at best.

How do I know they speak the truth? where is the actual study?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 

What you may not realize is that people have been consuming "genetically modified" food since Gregor Mendel
established, amid great debate and opposition, the fact that genetic inheritance could be manipulated by man. Modern plant stocks and commodities are the direct descendants of early "GM" work. Corn as we know it does not exist as a natural crop, for example.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


Is there any link to the actual study so I can see for myself how accurate these claims of shortcomings and unscientific data are?
If what they are saying is true then the study was poor at best.
How do I know they speak the truth? where is the actual study?


In the original thread screaming the praises and revelations of the of the Seralini "study," you will find cites to it and the critics' attacks upon it.

Your mom can show you how to use this new thing called Google" and the ATS feature called "Search."
They are amazing!

jw
edit on 16-10-2012 by jdub297 because: quote



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by seeker1963
 

What you may not realize is that people have been consuming "genetically modified" food since Gregor Mendel
established, amid great debate and opposition, the fact that genetic inheritance could be manipulated by man. Modern plant stocks and commodities are the direct descendants of early "GM" work. Corn as we know it does not exist as a natural crop, for example.
This is true.
It is also true that Gregor Mendel style genetic modifications did not have the ability to fuse the genetic material from an earthworm into the genetic material of a tomato.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



What you may not realize is that people have been consuming "genetically modified" food since Gregor Mendel
established, amid great debate and opposition, the fact that genetic inheritance could be manipulated by man. Modern plant stocks and commodities are the direct descendants of early "GM" work. Corn as we know it does not exist as a natural crop, for example.


Agreed, but at Mendel's level of research he was basically producing "hybrids".


At the monastery Mendel tended the garden, and beginning in 1856 he conducted extensive experiments with pea pod plants, tracking some 28,000 individual plants over several years and focusing his attention on seven basic characteristics of the plants. In his experiments, Mendel crossed peas of different varieties — tall, short, various seed shapes and colors, etc. — and kept detailed records of how these characteristics were seen or vanished in subsequent generations. He conducted similar experiments on other plants and on mice, and having been educated in mathematics, Mendel noticed recurring ratios in his analysis of how traits were inherited, ratios which could only be explained through dominance and segregation of genes.


Source

Not a fair comparison to the likes of Monsanto who is genetically implementing poisons directly into the plants now is it?
edit on 16-10-2012 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


Is there any link to the actual study so I can see for myself how accurate these claims of shortcomings and unscientific data are?


In the original thread screaming the praises and revelations of the of the Seralini "study," you will find cites to it and the critics' attacks upon it.


without being quite so savage - you can find it through this ATS thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...

however unless you are suitably qualified and equiped to understand experimental design,analysis and reporting I doubt you can actually make any useful analysis on your own.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Here's a blog by "Skeptical Raptor" that examines the original report and "deconstructs the myth"!

GMO corn causes cancer–Myth vs. Science (recent news)

and New Scientist also identified many errors in the original tha si refered to the SR's blog - here's one of their points:


But didn't the treated rats get sicker than the untreated rats?
Some did, but that's not the full 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.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Let us not discount the fact that the European Food Safety Authority had already concluded that genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 was "safe" before this study was released.

That determination may have been made, due to meta-research (collation of existing unspecified research papers); this objection was raised by the research institution which has been determined to be "of low quality." How can EFSA objectively review research when it contradicts a prior finding of their own? How would they explain prior 'approval' when evidence - even minimal - indicates a danger...?

Remember how Tobacco was OK, and there was never any indication that it was a danger? Remember when fluoridation was unassailable as a safe thing to put in our drinking water? Remember how DDT was "A-O-K" and dusted on kids all overt the world? Remember how Agent Orange was gonna save American lives in Viet Nam? Remember PCB's, mercury?

All of the above these things came with endlessly applied technocratic and autocratic assurances.. controlled (and to a degree manned) by the very industry they are supposed to be scrutinizing.

GMO seem to have the same blessing of the 'leaders' who make policy.

Sadly, we are increasingly ignorant of just how much of this stuff we are already consuming....

Here's a good rule of thumb... if you've seen it advertised in ANY kind of media... it's probably GMO.

Well, welcome to politics in science...

Monsanto Pfizer's (and the banking cartels' behind them) revenue stream depends in large part from the control of the global food market.... Hence the inability to successfully challenge technocratic findings with actual research... .as opposed to the "elite" doctrine; "we know best... now eat it"... (but not in the Monsanto cafeteria, go figure.)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
This study is not rubbish because there were dioxins in Agent Orange - it is rubbish because it is rubbish.

You are making excuses for poor science because it suits your preconceptions - in other words bias - exactly the same as you are accusing the EFSA.
edit on 16-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Ironically, this "debunked" paper used precisely the same methodology (controls, sample sizes, analysis, etc.) as the primary-source studies used in the meta-analysis reviews used to conclude that the methodology in this paper was insufficient. Read that again, and let it sink in.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


Of course the methodology is the same in those respects - superficially it looks fine. It is HOW the methodology is used that matters - sample sizes aer a erquirement - but they can be good or bad. Controls are necessary - but they can be inadequate. Statistical analysis is a must - but it can be appropriate and well done...or not.

In this case the debunked paper had all the required "headline" methodologies - but screwed up in the detail.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
i read a study from the russians years ago saying gmo caused birth defects. ignore the efsa they r in monsantos pocket.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by tmw93
 


Got an actual link to that study?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I still wont eat gmo's and I think I have the right to know if they are in my food regardless if the study in question was accurate. I just have a bad gut feeling about gmo's and I guess we will just have to see if I am right because big agra really wants this stuff out there.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


Is there any link to the actual study so I can see for myself how accurate these claims of shortcomings and unscientific data are?
If what they are saying is true then the study was poor at best.
How do I know they speak the truth? where is the actual study?


In the original thread screaming the praises and revelations of the of the Seralini "study," you will find cites to it and the critics' attacks upon it.

Your mom can show you how to use this new thing called Google" and the ATS feature called "Search."
They are amazing!

jw
edit on 16-10-2012 by jdub297 because: quote


Wow. You spent all that time being mean, and still did not provide the study. Maybe your mom can teach you not to waste my time.

Amazingly the OP stepped in and answered my question, which believe it or not was directed at him/her. Not You.

Time to go see it:
Study


I hate to say this but...

That is one terrible study.. I could have done better. Looks like the OP is accurate. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am not going to even look at anything after I looked at their controls and their population size... They could have proved anything looking at so few rats.. I'm not sure I would understand the Analysis, but an analysis based on bad numbers wouldn't mean much to me anyway.


This doesn't mean their findings are wrong.. It just means this study was a waste of time.

Needs more study before I want to eat GMO. Meanwhile they don't have to tell me how much of it I am ingesting.
edit on 10/17/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


I think you make a good point. This study is trash, but it does raise some valid concerns. Most tests do not feed the rats for as long as this one did, that is the only useful thing to come out of this study. Just because their method was garbage, doesn't make them wrong. I would like someone to do an actual study that be used and feed the rats for longer.





new topics




 
4

log in

join