Monsanto can't explain how GMO wheat survived

I dug up some more info and studies, along with a nice link about the debate on GMOs where scientists collide on the facts and methodology of the study.

Image Source: NIH - Debate on GMOs health risks after statistical findings in regulatory tests.



Abstract of the debate, which will include links to one side of it, of course =)

We summarize the major points of international debate on health risk studies for the main commercialized edible GMOs. These GMOs are soy, maize and oilseed rape designed to contain new pesticide residues since they have been modified to be herbicide-tolerant (mostly to Roundup) or to produce mutated Bt toxins. The debated alimentary chronic risks may come from unpredictable insertional mutagenesis effects, metabolic effects, or from the new pesticide residues. The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies. Our previous analyses of regulatory raw data at these levels, taking the representative examples of three GM maize NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863 led us to conclude that hepatorenal toxicities were possible, and that longer testing was necessary.

... As a conclusion, we call for the promotion of transparent, independent and reproducible health studies for new commercial products, the dissemination of which implies consequences on a large scale. Lifetime studies for laboratory animals consuming GMOs must be performed, by contrast to what is done today, like the two-year long tests on rats for some pesticides or some drugs.

It is an interesting read, which is something surprising (imo) for NIH docs.

And here are some other tests / documents posted on NIH about finding "hepatorenal toxicity" in rats that ate MON863 Maize

Health risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or feed is under debate throughout the world, and very little data have been published on mid- or long-term toxicological studies with mammals. One of these studies performed under the responsibility of Monsanto Company with a transgenic corn MON863 has been subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe, where it was finally approved in 2005. This necessitated a new assessment of kidney pathological findings, and the results remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany (Münster) allowed public access in June 2005 to all the crude data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We independently re-analyzed these data.

NIH - New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.

Next up, this scientist team do a study on MON810 maize, MON863 maize, and NK603 maize.

Their findings are the following:

Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.

The study is here: NIH - A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health.

Below is an image from another study on rats that ate GMO soybeans for their 1-24 month lifetime. Like the findings above, this separate team of scientists finds a problem in the duodenum, a part of the dietary system.



There is a clear difference between the control subject and the GMO subject in G and H imo.

Duodenum of control (e) and GM-fed (f) mice; Alcian blue pH 2.5 staining for detection of acidic mucins: note the lower amount in the GM-fed mouse. Duodenum of control (g) and GM-fed (h) mice; high iron diamine-alcian blue technique for detection of sulpho-mucins: note the lower amount in the GM-fed mouse. Bars: 50 µm; insets 0.5 µm.

Read more here: NIH - Histochemical and morpho-metrical study of mouse intestine epithelium after a long term diet containing genetically modified soybean.

I'm not so sure the science is sound just yet. Maybe we will know for sure in 20 years... =)

reply to post by Philippines

You understand that the experiments were not conducted by the NIH, right? You understand the the conclusions reached are not from the NIH, right?

Seralini? You know that he is rather notorious for the lack of rigor in his experimental methods, statistical "creativity", and interpretation, right?

The GMO Panel notes that several of its fundamental statistical criticisms (EFSA, 2007a,b) of the authors' earlier study (Seralini et al., 2007) of maize MON863 are also applicable to the new paper by de Vendômois et al. In the GMO Panel's extensive evaluation of Seralini et al. (2007), reasons for the apparent excess of significant differences found for MON863 (8%) were given and it was shown that this raised no safety concerns.

The GMO Panel considers that de Vendômois et al.: (1) make erroneous statements concerning the use of reference varieties to provide estimates of variability that allow equivalence testing to place statistically significant results into biological context as advocated by EFSA (2008, 2009a); (2) do not use the available information concerning normal background variability between animals fed with different diets, to place observed differences into biological context; (3) do not present results using their False Discovery Rate methodology in a meaningful way; (4) give no evidence to relate well known gender differences in response to diet to claims of effects due to the respective GMOs; (5) estimate statistical power based on inappropriate analyses and magnitudes of difference.

www.efsa.europa.eu...

In the absence of any indications that the observed differences in test parameters are indicative of adverse effects, the GMO Panel does not consider that the publication by Séralini et al. (2007) raises new issues which are toxicologically relevant.

www.efsa.europa.eu...
www.efsa.europa.eu...



Oh, your last link? It doesn't really have much to say about the dangers of GMOs.

Our results demonstrate that controls and GM-soybean fed mice are similarly affected by ageing. Moreover, the GM soybean-containing diet does not induce structural alterations in duodenal and colonic epithelium or in coliform population, even after a long term intake.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Originally posted by Phage

Oh, your last link? It doesn't really have much to say about the dangers of GMOs.

Our results demonstrate that controls and GM-soybean fed mice are similarly affected by ageing. Moreover, the GM soybean-containing diet does not induce structural alterations in duodenal and colonic epithelium or in coliform population, even after a long term intake.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

You could be right on the last link, I will have to read in depth more on that study.

When you're quoting EFSA, I am still trying to build a consensus on the EFSA team's credibility as operating outside the influence of corporations, not being corrupt etc.

The executive director of the EFSA, Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, touts being a part of Codex Alimentarius. Here's the link [EFSA]

She has held a number of international positions, notably as the "Chair of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on General Principles in 2001 and 2002, as well as Deputy Director of the French Department of International Trade from 1998 to 2000, managing French food aid. Here she worked closely with the European Commission and several other international organisations, working to promote the European agricultural model.

Anyways, if you want to quote EFSA as your news source, I raise you this EFSA news source:

EFSA - EFSA promotes public access to data in transparency initiative

Press Release 14 January 2013 EFSA is today announcing the launch of a major initiative designed to facilitate access to data, enhancing transparency in risk assessment. The programme, to be developed in cooperation with the Authority’s partners and stakeholders, will consider how best and to what extent technical data used in risk assessments can be made available to the broader scientific community and interested parties.

Continue, and important about Seralini, as to why the EFSA would do this is Seralini is really dismissed:

EFSA Executive Director Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle said: "Risk assessment is an evolving science and EFSA is always willing to review its past work should new robust science bring a new perspective to any of the Authority's previous findings. With the launch of today's initiative that aims to make data used in risk assessment publicly available, EFSA will help scientists from different areas of expertise develop research that can ultimately enrich academic literature and provide valuable new perspectives that can be included in risk assessments. This will make the conclusions of risk assessments even stronger when ensuring public health protection and further build confidence in EFSA's work."

I think I will download that EFSA GM maize NK603 data now, available [here], a bit large.

Oh, and "risk assessment is an evolving science" -- seems like "science" evolves behind evolution/adaptation. Why try to intervene in the first place?

They can't explain it....I call bs.

They probably put that wheat there hoping that they'd get it legally commercialized and then could sue the farmer just like they did those other farmers. They are sneaky little bastards.

The more I read up on this company the more I realize just how freaking evil they are. All over the world people were protesting them and for good reason.

Now with all this other news made public lately about our government Monsanto seems to be slowly disappearing from the headlines. I hope this was not deliberate but i'm also hoping it doesn't matter and that people will care enough to keep standing up to them.

reply to post by Philippines

Why try to intervene in the first place?

Because we got tired of living in caves?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

Why try to intervene in the first place?

Because we got tired of living in caves?

Huh? I thought I made a nice post for a rational debate and you focus on living in caves?

Edit: In other words, what does intervention by living in caves have to do with transgenic crop manipulation? (The subject)

reply to post by Philippines

Oh, and "risk assessment is an evolving science" -- seems like "science" evolves behind evolution/adaptation. Why try to intervene in the first place?

It's about moving forward.
Caves were nice and safe. Why leave them?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

Oh, and "risk assessment is an evolving science" -- seems like "science" evolves behind evolution/adaptation. Why try to intervene in the first place?

It's about moving forward.
Caves were nice and safe. Why leave them?

edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ok, avoid answering the issues, though I wish you would try to debate and argue the links I presented.

If not argue, then acknowledge. Going full straw man doesn't help the case in today's world imo

reply to post by Philippines


I do not claim to be a scientist nor do I claim to understand those studies however I understand some of it and my education is well rounded with a good amount of real world experience in different cultures. I also do good bit of reading on a wide variety of topics including many science journals and as I stated I don’t always understand the finer details within them I do get the gist of them.
I will only attempt to answer this question from your post.

Why try to intervene in the first place?

This is my understanding. There is a need for crops that are resistant to drought, disease, insects, and can increase yield. Maybe it isn’t as much of a problem here in the US but there are many other countries that would welcome such innovation. They may be able to modify plants to grow in conditions on lands that had been considered unfit for agriculture. I have traveled to several countries that had lands unfit for any crops and the populace would benefit greatly from such innovation. There are many reasons to intervene.

Your question got me interested if you could will you please tell me what you thought they were intervening for? What do you think their reasons are? Of course the company is profit driven however they wouldn’t be able to make profits if their product was not sought after. So basically I am asking for your opinion besides the obvious answer of money. Money will always be involved in selling any product.

reply to post by Philippines

Ok, avoid answering the issues, though I wish you would try to debate and argue the links I presented.

What is there to debate?
I think transparency is a good thing. Don't you?
I think willingness of EFSA to review its past work is a good thing. Don't you?

Phage, I really don't understand your platform and beliefs on this issue after I am giving you some good (imo) information to digest.

Grimpachi, I will get back to you when I can, it's real late now where I'm at. I will try to read your post before I sleep to think about it =)

reply to post by Philippines

Phage, I really don't understand your platform and beliefs on this issue after I am giving you some good (imo) information to digest.

You think I haven't been clear enough? Ok, I'll try to remedy that.

I have seen no convincing evidence that there is anything inherently dangerous about permitted GMO crops.
I have no reason to think that there is anything inherently dangerous about GMO crops.


I don't understand why you think statements from the EFSA regarding their willingness to re-examine their data and an active program to increase transparency indicates that there is anything inherently dangerous about GMO crops.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Philippines

 

I do not claim to be a scientist nor do I claim to understand those studies however I understand some of it and my education is well rounded with a good amount of real world experience in different cultures. I also do good bit of reading on a wide variety of topics including many science journals and as I stated I don’t always understand the finer details within them I do get the gist of them.
I will only attempt to answer this question from your post.

Why try to intervene in the first place?

This is my understanding. There is a need for crops that are resistant to drought, disease, insects, and can increase yield. Maybe it isn’t as much of a problem here in the US but there are many other countries that would welcome such innovation. They may be able to modify plants to grow in conditions on lands that had been considered unfit for agriculture. I have traveled to several countries that had lands unfit for any crops and the populace would benefit greatly from such innovation. There are many reasons to intervene.

Your question got me interested if you could will you please tell me what you thought they were intervening for? What do you think their reasons are? Of course the company is profit driven however they wouldn’t be able to make profits if their product was not sought after. So basically I am asking for your opinion besides the obvious answer of money. Money will always be involved in selling any product.

edit on 8-6-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Their product is not really exactly sought after. It's rejected in dozens of countries. The public never "sought after" these products. Most of the public doesn't even know they're there. These products are literally foisted upon the public who have no say in the matter. Then, when certain companies in the states advertised themselves as not having these products, they were sued. So you're not even allowed to say your products doesn't have these products, AND no one is allowed to label them or know which foods they're in even though EVERY other thing about foods is apparent on the label.

The FDA approves these products along with the Federal courts and it's clear that Monsanto have people in place in all of these agencies. So "sought after" is not exactly what I'd call these products.

And they "may be able to modify" plants to withstand drought. Well they keep saying that but I don't see anything on the market. They haven't done it yet. Besides, there's breeding that can do a certain amount of that. All they've managed to do so far is make crops that that CONTAIN their own pesticides or withstand pesticide. Doesn't really sound very useful to all the rest of us, only useful to the farmers and Monsanto and that's about it.

Originally posted by Phage

reply to post by Philippines

 

You understand that the experiments were not conducted by the NIH, right? You understand the the conclusions reached are not from the NIH, right?

Seralini? You know that he is rather notorious for the lack of rigor in his experimental methods, statistical "creativity", and interpretation, right?

The GMO Panel notes that several of its fundamental statistical criticisms (EFSA, 2007a,b) of the authors' earlier study (Seralini et al., 2007) of maize MON863 are also applicable to the new paper by de Vendômois et al. In the GMO Panel's extensive evaluation of Seralini et al. (2007), reasons for the apparent excess of significant differences found for MON863 (8%) were given and it was shown that this raised no safety concerns.

The GMO Panel considers that de Vendômois et al.: (1) make erroneous statements concerning the use of reference varieties to provide estimates of variability that allow equivalence testing to place statistically significant results into biological context as advocated by EFSA (2008, 2009a); (2) do not use the available information concerning normal background variability between animals fed with different diets, to place observed differences into biological context; (3) do not present results using their False Discovery Rate methodology in a meaningful way; (4) give no evidence to relate well known gender differences in response to diet to claims of effects due to the respective GMOs; (5) estimate statistical power based on inappropriate analyses and magnitudes of difference.

www.efsa.europa.eu...

In the absence of any indications that the observed differences in test parameters are indicative of adverse effects, the GMO Panel does not consider that the publication by Séralini et al. (2007) raises new issues which are toxicologically relevant.

www.efsa.europa.eu...
www.efsa.europa.eu...



Oh, your last link? It doesn't really have much to say about the dangers of GMOs.

Our results demonstrate that controls and GM-soybean fed mice are similarly affected by ageing. Moreover, the GM soybean-containing diet does not induce structural alterations in duodenal and colonic epithelium or in coliform population, even after a long term intake.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

There is no study in this area that is conclusive. Each and every study can be debunked. You know also that Monsanto's own study's were extremely short lived and not very comprehensive, right?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by thebtheb

 

And you know this how? Are you an agronomist?
It seems obvious to me that the larger the field you're dealing with, the more difficult it becomes to deal with pests.

But you're right, if it could be done it would be much more expensive. That's why the difference in the cost of organic produce. It costs more to farm that way.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well I'm not an agronomist. But I've been studying this off and on for years and heard debates on both sides, and read what many professionals say is possible and not possible. So no, it doesn't seem that hard to me. And the expense compared to profit ratio for those big agro businesses were they to do it isn't nearly as disastrous as you'd think.

reply to post by thebtheb

You kind of latched on to the words “sought out” however your last sentence says:

Doesn't really sound very useful to all the rest of us, only useful to the farmers and Monsanto and that's about it.

Now as far as I know the farmers are the ones this would benefit and would be the ones who would seek the product from them in the form of seeds. Doesn’t that pretty much negate your whole argument then?

As you stated there are many countries that have banned them I found that in my research but the world is much bigger than just those countries and politics does play a role in it.

I am still more than willing to look at any evidence showing consuming GMO’s are unsafe or harmful however so far I am disappointed with what has been presented. I had expected to be bombarded with links to be honest.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Philippines

 

I do not claim to be a scientist nor do I claim to understand those studies however I understand some of it and my education is well rounded with a good amount of real world experience in different cultures. I also do good bit of reading on a wide variety of topics including many science journals and as I stated I don’t always understand the finer details within them I do get the gist of them.
I will only attempt to answer this question from your post.

Why try to intervene in the first place?

This is my understanding. There is a need for crops that are resistant to drought, disease, insects, and can increase yield. Maybe it isn’t as much of a problem here in the US but there are many other countries that would welcome such innovation. They may be able to modify plants to grow in conditions on lands that had been considered unfit for agriculture. I have traveled to several countries that had lands unfit for any crops and the populace would benefit greatly from such innovation. There are many reasons to intervene.

Your question got me interested if you could will you please tell me what you thought they were intervening for? What do you think their reasons are? Of course the company is profit driven however they wouldn’t be able to make profits if their product was not sought after. So basically I am asking for your opinion besides the obvious answer of money. Money will always be involved in selling any product.

edit on 8-6-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

You answered a part of your question, which of course is money, and enforceable monopoly of the agricultural market for food used in just about every product, like corn, soy, wheat, and rice, among others like alfalfa supposedly for the animals to eat but not humans =)

I think the other parts are patents and genetics. Farmers with knowledge of creating hybrid strains can do so without transgenic techniques. Perhaps those farmers can even patent their non-transgenic strains of plants. Perhaps other farmers will buy those hybrid strains and make their own strains, or even reuse the seed.

The difference with transgenic seed, is that no average person can insert genes from cross-species organisms, lets say bacteria like Bacillus thuringiensis, among other organisms.

So after you have made your transgenic product, you now have genetic markers to test with if your patented product has been used without permission. On top of that, you also have other chemical herbicide products that are designed to kill every plant except your transgenic plant designed to withstand that herbicide, while producing its own transgenic pesticide.

After the green revolution, monocropping and the use of chemicals (like chlordane, lindane, and DDT on plants was a "success". Farmers could produce more output on the same amount of land with less work.

Many large commercial farms are dependent on chemicals and monocropping for their livelihood. Enter in a company with transgenic patents on seeds like corn - where the farmer will produce more with less work - and cannot save seed, but must repurchase new seed from the company every season - makes sense on why this company would intervene - it's a cash cow. Transgenic companies will fight against mother nature and create new transgenic patents to replace their old products that are now not performing like intended.

So yeah, it's about money and being able to easily enforce their patent rights to make sure their monopoly is protected. I think for a transgenic company to claim it's for the betterment of humanity so people can eat, is about the same kind of spirit that other large corporations make when they say they're "going green". People are still starving...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

Phage, I really don't understand your platform and beliefs on this issue after I am giving you some good (imo) information to digest.

You think I haven't been clear enough? Ok, I'll try to remedy that.

I have seen no convincing evidence that there is anything inherently dangerous about permitted GMO crops.
I have no reason to think that there is anything inherently dangerous about GMO crops.


I don't understand why you think statements from the EFSA regarding their willingness to re-examine their data and an active program to increase transparency indicates that there is anything inherently dangerous about GMO crops.

edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ok, thanks for your explanation, understood. Have you seen, or know where I can find all of the monsanto studies done for their products?

I think it's great for EFSA to re-examine the data. Hopefully some new studies have already begun and we can expect new results in 2 years.

As for Seralini, he wasn't doing the studies alone. And for his findings to be on NIH makes me wonder why their results differ from other's results.

reply to post by Philippines

Have you seen, or know where I can find all of the monsanto studies done for their products?

No I haven't seen them.

And for his findings to be on NIH makes me wonder why their results differ from other's results.

The NIH site is a clearinghouse for articles. It doesn't take much to have a paper put there. The differences in Seralini's results have to do with his questionable experimental methods, "creative" statistical analysis, and generally biased conclusions. And those aren't just my opinions.

reply to post by Phage

As pointed out, the decrease exceeds the increase in herbicide use. A substantial net reduction.

Perhaps you can show me where you read this because I am reading the exact opposite.

But fact is there was a net decrease in the net per acre application rate between 1996 and 2011.

Can you show me this fact? From what I read in the paper I linked shows an increase in chemicals not a decrease.

A new problem that started with the use of herbicides and pesticides, not with the use of GMOs.

The increased use of chemicals with the use of GMO crops has lead to an acceleration in these chemical resistant pests. This problem has become much worse with the use of GMO which has lead to an ever increasing use of more chemicals. The point here is the increased need and use of chemicals to combat chemical resistant pests not where the problem originated.

And yet, as the data from your first citation shows, the use of 2,4-D declined by 17% between 1996 and 2011. There was an increase of 4% from 2005 to 2009 and no change from 2009 to 2011.

Of course there hasn’t been an increase in the use of 2,4-D because there are currently restrictions on this herbicide and Dow has yet to get approval for the use of 2,4-D corn. One doesn’t need a study to predict an increase in the use of 2,4-D with the acceptance of Dow’s 2,4-D resistant corn.

Is a statement of speculation. Speculation about deregulation. Speculation about what the situation would be without GMOs. Speculation that 2,4-D is and will remain the only alternative.

you confuse “speculation” with hypothesis. The summary of that paper is predicting an increase in chemical use based on current trends which is hardly speculation. It also predicts an increase in the use of 2,4-D with the introduction of 2,4-D resistant corn.