It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I found it very telling that when Seralini was asked to provide more information on which he based his study, his response was:
AFP - The EU's food safety agency definitively rejected Wednesday a bombshell French report linking genetically modified corn to cancer, saying it failed to meet "acceptable scientific standards."
"Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Seralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards," the European Food Safety Authority said in a statement.
"Consequently it is not possible to draw valid conclusions about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested," the agency said.
EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), added that it "finds there is no need to re-examine its previous safety evaluations of NK603," the genetically modified maize developed by US agribusiness giant Monsanto.
That same conclusion had been reached in separate and independent assessments of Gilles-Eric Seralini's work carried out in six European Union nations, the agency added.
His position is that it is scandalous not to provide information, at the same time that he is not providing information? A strange way for any scientist to behave.
But the scientist responded that he would not give EFSA additional information until it first detailed the basis of its own assessment.
"It is absolutely scandalous that (EFSA) keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation" of NK603 and the pesticide, he said at the time.
"In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do."
1. “Biopharming” — a new way to make drugs
Since the 1960s, the standard of care for childhood diarrhea in the developing world has been the World Health Organization’s formulation of rehydration solution, a glucose-based, high-sodium liquid that is administered orally.
However, this product did nothing to lessen the severity or duration of the condition, which over time leads to malnutrition, anemia, and other chronic health risks. The solution (literally and figuratively) may be an ingenious, affordable innovation from Ventria that combines high- and low-tech components to deliver what could be a veritable Holy Grail: two proteins produced inexpensively in rice that radically improve the effectiveness of oral rehydration solutions.
What makes this approach to managing diarrhea feasible is Ventria’s invention of a genetically engineered method that uses rice to produce lactoferrin and lysozyme. This process, dubbed “biopharming,” is an inexpensive and ingenious way to synthesize the large quantities of these proteins that will be necessary.
The proven life-saving potential of these products has not prevented activists from opposing them. In Peru, left-wing protesters raised completely baseless and malicious objections to the clinical trials, claiming that the rights of the pediatric subjects were being violated. Typically, the activists grossly misrepresented the facts pertaining to the conduct of the trial and the product iself. The proteins used to supplement the oral rehydration solution are considered Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the protocols, consent forms, and study design of the trial were, in fact, approved not only by the Peruvian Ministry of Health, but also by review panels that oversee clinical trials at the University of California and the Nutritional Institute in Peru. The naysayers seem unimpressed by the fact that the experimental therapy was found to be both safe and effective.
A second example is a genetically engineered mosquito intended to reduce the mosquito population that carries dengue fever, a debilitating and often fatal disease.
The modified mosquitoes produce high levels of the protein, which, although not toxic itself, confounds some of the cell’s essential machinery and causes death. When they are released, they survive long enough to mate with wild females, but the offspring die.
Working with local health officials and university scientists and after receiving appropriate approvals, Oxitec undertook experimental releases of these modified mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands and in the Juazeiro region of Brazil. According to the published accounts of these releases, the Oxitec approach to controlling mosquito population was highly effective, reducing the infected mosquito population by 80 percent in the Cayman Islands and by 90 percent in Brazil.
In the Cayman Islands and Brazil, GeneWatch activists spread alarming, false rumors that the field trials of genetically engineered mosquitoes were dangerous and had been undertaken without informing the public. Similarly, activists have circulated petitions in Key West, Florida — where dengue reappeared three years ago after an absence of more than 70 years — to prevent the release of the mosquitoes there. The sentiments of the director of a mosquito-control agency in Florida illustrate the difficulties of dealing with the activists: “I thought that if I presented the facts in a reasonable manner, people would respond in a reasonable way. But that’s not happening."
The third example is a potential nutritional/medical breakthrough called Golden Rice.
In the 1980s and 1990s, German scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer developed rice varieties that are biofortified, or enriched, by the introduction of genes that enable the edible endosperm of rice to produce beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. (It is converted in the human body, as needed, to the active form of the vitamin.)
Every year, about half a million children go blind as a result of vitamin A deficiency, and 70 percent of those die within a year of losing their sight.
As reported in their published paper on the clinical trials, children who ate the Golden Rice had higher levels of vitamin A than if they had consumed traditional rice or other food sources of the vitamin.
(Previously, Greenpeace activists had first alleged that Golden Rice would deliver toxic amounts of vitamin A, and when that was shown to be virtually impossible, changed tack and claimed that it would provide too little Vitamin A to be effective.)
In the 1990s, A European biotech company prepared to commercially release a genetically engineered soil bacterium for use by farmers. They were operating under two very reasonable assumptions:
1. Nobody likes plant waste.
2. Everybody likes booze.
Whereas the common man might address these issues by simply not doing any plowing and opting to get plowed instead, scientists at the biotech company thought of a much more elegant solution: Engineer a bacterium that aggressively decomposes dead plant material--specifically wheat--into alcohol. And in 1990, they did exactly that. The bacterium was called Klebsiella planticola, and it nearly murdered everybody; you just don't know it yet.
Is this particular worry alleviated?
Golden Rice is expected to cost farmers about the same as other rice.
The inventors of Golden Rice, Professor Ingo Potrykus and Dr. Peter Beyer, donated the technology in 2000 as a gift for resource-poor farmers in developing countries because of its enormous potential to benefit public health.
Syngenta arranged royalty-free access to the patents and intellectual property, held by several biotechnology companies, for a number of key technologies used in Golden Rice. This allows IRRI and others to develop Golden Rice on a not-for-profit basis.
Our Golden Rice project is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the United States Agency for International Development, and the national agriculture programs of the Philippines and Bangladesh.
Six European countries, and the European food safety administration are all rejecting the study, and the study's author is refusing to provide information he based his study on. It seems to me that it is the original study that is suspect, not the seven reviews.
EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), added that it "finds there is no need to re-examine its previous safety evaluations of NK603," the genetically modified maize developed by US agribusiness giant Monsanto.
That same conclusion had been reached in separate and independent assessments of Gilles-Eric Seralini's work carried out in six European Union nations, the agency added.
Our Golden Rice project is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the United States Agency for International Development
Six European countries, and the European food safety administration are all rejecting the study, and the study's author is refusing to provide information he based his study on. It seems to me that it is the original study that is suspect, not the seven reviews.
Our Golden Rice project is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the United States Agency for International Development
Wooooooooow now my alarm bells are really kicking off! I have ZERO trust for these people....
What are we to do? Shall we look for scientific advancement from people in their basements? What institution, that is doing serious work, is not connected to money or the government?
You have to take all of this with a grain of salt.
Who can you trust? Institutions connected with money and politics? Gotta be kidding me.
Although common sense isnt perfect, its far superior to the naivity it requires to actually believe and trust anything monied industry or research conglomerates want to convince us of.
What are we to do? Shall we look for scientific advancement from people in their basements? What institution, that is doing serious work, is not connected to money or the government? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but this sounds like a plan to shut down science.
There may be some confusion here. The royalty-free access was for some of the technology used in making the rice, not the rice itself. Once they had permission to use some of the technology required to make the rice, they made a new patent for the process and product, which was given away completely. You see the confusion?
Hey dude... I'm sorry but I have to laugh a little while reading the "golden rice" story... Now call me cynical but if these guys were doing it for the good of mankind why wouldn't they just release it patent free? No, they have granted "royalty-free access to the patents and intellectual property" Do you see the difference here? They still OWN the patents and so what is to stop them from selling the patents in the future or revoking the royalty-free access?
Well, where do you want the millions of dollars to come from? Anything they give money to is bad for the world? They've helped in producing something beneficial, preventing blindness and death. It's fully researched and governments can study it and approve it or not, however they see fit. How do the Gates, or anyone else donating money, make this evil?
Our Golden Rice project is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the United States Agency for International Development
Wooooooooow now my alarm bells are really kicking off! I have ZERO trust for these people....
Actually I disagree. Forgive my bluntness, but even MUCH, MUCH, more information will not convince you. You won't accept anything coming from any government or official source. But you are convinced by one guy who is hiding his data?
I read it yeah... This needs MUCH more info for me to be convinced, for a start WHO are the "6 European countries" and who conducted the reviews? Yes the fact that he is not releasing info isn't good but still, like I said, I do not trust these organizations one bit! They are all no doubt "official" sources, so they have my skepticism...
Please remember that there are two groups of studies involved. The European Union's saying the corn is safe, which is being accused of hiding data by a scientist who is being criticized by that group. There is also Seralini's study which is being condemned by seven different bodies as not meeting scientific standards. In the face of that I see no reason to accept Seralini's study. If there is a claim that the EU's study is false, then that should be explored, but reason demands that Seralini's be tossed, at least as it is.
Also aren't the people you are quoting ALSO hiding information? You seem to use the hiding of data as a negative for Seralini but not for the other guys refuting the study, that doesn't fly with me... Either withholding information is universally bad or universally good... Which is it?
Does rice cross-pollinate? Does it spread out to new lands detroying other vegetation? And if it replaces all rice in the world, you end up with rice with more Vitamin A then there is normally. A problem? If you were to ban Golden Rice, wouldn't you still have the problem of not being able to choose GE or natural?
Besides it doesn't deal with the issue of cross pollination and thus IF it were to wipe out natural rice, we would still have the problem of not being able to choose GM or natural...