800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End

reply to post by Phage

If even one of the papers has been shown to be invalid it makes the letter obsolete. But many more than one of them have been shown invalid.

I guess you have u turned on your initial statement that the papers are obsolete because of their age. Instead you are now inferring that the letter in obsolete because some of the papers may now be invalid.. That does not make the consensus agreed on in this letter invalid.

reply to post by purplemer

I guess you have u turned on your initial statement that the papers are obsolete because of their age.

I guess you don't know what not standing up to more recent research means.
Let me clarify. More recent research has invalidated dated studies.

Originally posted by Phage
There are quite a few more that 800 scientists in the world.

But premise of the thread isn't exactly accurate. the letter actually calls for a moratorium, not an "end".

I wonder if any of the original signers have changed their opinion after 13 years with no disastrous results of the "experiment". I wonder if they all think a moratorium still makes any sense.

edit on 8/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Even if I know nothing else about it...it IS a disaster in TASTE!

People are desperate for flavor in their fruit and veggies again, they taste like cardboard and that is the good stuff!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LarryLove

 

I've stated it many times.
I have seen no convincing evidence that they are harmful and I have no reason to think they are inherently dangerous.

edit on 8/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

quoting myself for an answer

what happened to first do no harm?
if pharma has to prove safety, why does GMO get a free ride?
if you then claim there is no substantial difference, why can they receive patents?

remember either they are "different" ie patentable and therefore require extensive testing
OR
there is no real difference, ie they don't require safety testing, but then are not patentable.

i wonder how this dichotomy can be reconciled?

both cant be correct,

PS do you go out and try to eat as much GMOs as possible?
ie if there so safe why dont you eat them exclusively?

xploder

so what are your answers?

if pharma has to prove safety

Pharmaceticals are not "proven safe". Ever notice the "possible side effects include..." part?

if you then claim there is no substantial difference, why can they receive patents?

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you think that only GMO plants are patented? You are mistaken. Plants have been patented since long before there were GMOs.

Unlike other living organisms, it is possible in the US to obtain not only a utility patent but also a plant patent under the US Plant Patent Act of 1930 for asexually reproduced plant varieties, and a certificate under the US Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) of 1970 for sexually produced or tuber-propagated plant varieties.

www.cof.orst.edu...

Hybrid tomatoes are patented. Hybrid corn is patented. They are non GMO. They are not tested for "safety".
www.google.com...
www.google.com...

i wonder how this dichotomy can be reconciled?

There is no need to reconcile a false dichotomy.

According to your criteria it would seem that it would be a dichotomy to reconciled if GMO plants were treated differently than other patented plants.

Originally posted by Phage

if pharma has to prove safety

Pharmaceticals are not "proven safe". Ever notice the "possible side effects include..." part?

so are you saying not only should people be made aware of the inclusion of GMOs in food with labelling,
they should also have any side effects listed? because if thats what your saying i agree.

if you then claim there is no substantial difference, why can they receive patents?

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you think that only GMO plants are patented?

of course NOT !!!!!!

Plants have been patented since long before there were GMOs.

HYBRIDS yes i realise that

Hybrid tomatoes are patented. Hybrid corn is patented. They are non GMO. They are not tested for "safety".
www.google.com...
www.google.com...

you are now trying to compare "hybrid" and the artificial insertion of a gene into a plant,
we both know the difference as we have debated before about this.

you should not try to confuse the hybrid vs GMO definition with me,
i do understand the difference, your ability to BS people with the tomato hybrid defence is a poor choice.

GMOs have a gene "inserted" into a "host" by way of a bacteria
hybrids have no such "insertion" and you know it

There is no need to reconcile a false dichotomy.

let me make it so clear that you cant miss interpret my words a second time,
IF they are "materially the same" and don't require safety testing
THEN how can they be patented?

IF they are "materially different" they require extensive safety testing
BUT can be patented

which is it?

try not to muddy the waters

i can tell the difference.

Doesn't it seem to you that it would be a dichotomy if GMO plants were treated differently than other patented plants?

they are different, one has a gene "inserted"
one has the gene from another plant or animal "inserted" in a way that nature could never achieve.

so they are different from anything in nature.

and you know this.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

so are you saying not only should people be made aware of the inclusion of GMOs in food with labelling,
they should also have any side effects listed?

No. I'm not saying that. You mentioned pharmaceuticals for some reason. I'm saying that pharmaceuticals are not "proven safe." I thought that was quite clear. I don't know why or how you tried to twist my words that way or why you even brought them up in the first place.

IF they are "materially the same" and don't require safety testing
THEN how can they be patented?

How can tomato plants be patented and not require testing?

IF they are "materially different" they require extensive safety testing
BUT can be patented

Please cite a source for that requirement.

they are different, one has a gene "inserted"
one has the gene from another plant or animal "inserted" in a way that nature could never achieve.

And what makes you think that makes it dangerous? Please be precise. What is it about adding that gene that could make the plant dangerous?

so they are different from anything in nature.
and you know this.

Corn does not exist and cannot in exist nature without the intervention of humans. Maybe you didn't know this.

No. I'm not saying that. You mentioned pharmaceuticals for some reason. I'm saying that pharmaceuticals are not "proven safe." I thought that was quite clear. I don't know why or how you tried to twist my words that way.

ok so the point your making is because medicine is "not safe" (your words)
we should also accept GMOs that are "not safe" because medicine??????

How can tomato plants be patented and not require testing?

they are not materially different but DISTINCT varieties.

they are different, one has a gene "inserted"
one has the gene from another plant or animal "inserted" in a way that nature could never achieve.

history,
we always think we know enough about a complex system,
and try to induce changes that are advantageous for us in the short term,
in the long term this is usually seen as a bad idea.

agent orange sprayed on kiddies at the pool for example,
the science at the time said it was safe.!!!!!!!

And what makes you think that makes it dangerous? Please be precise. What is it about adding that gene that could make the plant dangerous?

advances in our understanding of RNA and of the fact that "junk DNA" is only junk when you dont have a clue what it does.
the most dangerous aspect is the ability for GMOs to "accidentally" get released and "contaminate" the environment.
just because you think human ingenuity has hit its peek, dont be surprised when we look back at this as we did for electro shock therapy, remember the scientists of the day were certain of its effectiveness.

Corn does not exist and cannot in exist nature without the intervention of humans. Maybe you didn't know this.

you know very well useful trait selection,
is nothing like genetic manipulation.

one is selective breeding of crops, non natural selection of selective positive traits

while the other takes parts of genes from one organism and displaces it into another unrelated organism.

not even remotely the same.

i think we should push for labelling and labeling of side effects

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

ok so the point your making is because medicine is "not safe" (your words)
we should also accept GMOs that are "not safe" because medicine??????

No. I'm not making any comparison. It is you who mentioned pharmacetcuals. I have no idea why you did that.

agent orange sprayed on kiddies at the pool for example,
the science at the time said it was safe.!!!!!!!

That is not true.

advances in our understanding of RNA and of the fact that "junk DNA" is only junk when you dont have a clue what it does.
the most dangerous aspect is the ability for GMOs to "accidentally" get released and "contaminate" the environment.
just because you think human ingenuity has hit its peek, dont be surprised when we look back at this as we did for electro shock therapy, remember the scientists of the day were certain of its effectiveness.

So, in other words. You don't know anything about genetic manipulation but you think it sounds really scary. Got it. Let's just test for....oh, I don't know....let's test for....ummmm....anything. Yeah that's it! GMOs must be bad so let's test for anything. Ok, let's design an experiment testing for anything. Better yet! Let's test for everything! That's there is real science alrighty!
I asked for specifics for a reason. You cannot design tests for "everything". You cannot have a controlled experiment for "everything".


Oh, you left out that citation about the requirement for "extensive testing". Should I wait or do you just want to drop it?

So, in other words. You don't know anything about genetic manipulation but you think it sounds really scary.

i think the idea that you are so short sighted, scares me.

what happens if your WRONG?
First "do no harm" that scientific enough for ya?
how can you be so sure we wont find at a later date that this technique causes corruption of "junk DNA",
that turns out to not be junk?
can you be 100% that in the future this will not be considered a "mistake"

i am reminded of tobacco products and the fact it was very difficult to pin point the EXACT cause of lung cancer,
it was proven in the end, but not after industry had concluded false safety studies extending the amount of time smoking was considered safe.

Got it. Let's just test for....oh, I don't know....let's test for....ummmm....anything. Yeah that's it! GMOs must be bad so let's test for anything.

you could start by testing for changes in the "junk DNA" segment of the plant DNA when you insert a gene into a location, this doesn't happen because we are ignorant of the "junk DNAs" purpose

Ok, let's design an experiment testing for anything. Better yet! Let's test for everything! That's there is real science alrighty!

what about testing for long term horizontal gene transfer?
oh that's right we dont care enough about our lab rats opps i mean citizens to LOOK at the problem at all,

and your going to say "its not feasable" to test the population,
WHICH IS WHY THIS SHOULD BE TESTED EXTENSIVELY BEFORE USE IN THE POPULATION.

I asked for specifics for a reason. You cannot design tests for "everything". You cannot have a controlled experiment for "everything".

how about toxicity passed 90 days?
its a very basic concept, 90 days testing is a joke and you know it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, you left out that citation about the requirement for "extensive testing". Should I wait or do you just want to drop it?

medicine says first do no harm,
biotech says # the harm look at the money

xploder

First "do no harm" that scientific enough for ya?

Actually, it's not. Can you cite the source please and the context?

how can you be so sure we wont find at a later date that this technique causes corruption of "junk DNA",

Can you explain how that might occur?

can you be 100% that in the future this will not be considered a "mistake"

Can we be 100% sure of anything? Is it 100% certain that a drunk driver won't serve into your lane? Better not drive then. Better not allow anyone to drive for that matter. Driving is not 100% safe. It kills more than 1 million people every year.

you could start by testing for changes in the "junk DNA" segment of the plant DNA when you insert a gene into a location, this doesn't happen because we are ignorant of the "junk DNAs" purpose

You are talking about mutation. Mutation happens in all plants. It always has and it always will. We eat plants and always have. We eat their DNA and always have. We injest bacteria and their genes, and always have.

You are using circular logic starting from a baseless premise, the premise that there is something inherently dangerous about GMOs. Not something dangerous about the genes which are implanted. Not something dangerous about the proteins those genes produce. Just something about GMOs. What? Exactly what is different about them that suggests they may be dangerous. "Just ain't natural." Yeah. Flying ain't natural neither. What scientific basis suggest that there is "something" bad about GMOs?

what about testing for long term horizontal gene transfer?

What exactly do you mean by that?

how about toxicity passed 90 days?

Why should GMOs be subjected to more stringent testing than anything else? But toxicity of what? Specifically? What do you want to test? Bt toxins? They've been tested. Extensively. What else? What toxic protein do you want to test? Because that is the only difference between GMOs and non-GMOs, the proteins they produce. And the DNA they contain. Do you think DNA is toxic?

Actually, it's not. Can you cite the source please and the context?

Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "first, do no harm." The phrase is sometimes recorded as primum nil nocere.[1]
Non-maleficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of medical ethics that all medical students and physical therapy are taught in medical school and is a fundamental principle for emergency medical services around the world. Another way to state it is that, "given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good". It reminds the physician and other health care providers that they must consider the possible harm that any intervention might do. It is invoked when debating the use of an intervention that carries an obvious risk of harm but a less certain chance of benefit.

en.wikipedia.org...

sure read for yourself^^^^^

how can you be so sure we wont find at a later date that this technique causes corruption of "junk DNA",

Can you explain how that might occur?

Can we be 100% sure of anything? Is it 100% certain that a drunk driver won't serve into your lane? Better not drive then. Better not allow anyone to drive for that matter. Driving is not 100% safe. It kills more than 1 million people every year.

but we can and do crash test new cars!!!!!!
to ensure that injuries are minimised

You are talking about mutation. Mutation happens in all plants. It always has and it always will. We eat plants and always have. We eat their DNA and always have. We injest bacteria and their genes, and always have.

i am suggesting that mutation occurs every-time a gene is inserted using the bacteria method,
and in an area where we dont even bother looking for changes ie what is considered "junk DNA"

What scientific basis suggest that there is "something" bad about GMOs?

you are reverting to the tobacco industries defence,
if you cant show explicitly the cause/effect then there is no harm that you can directly attribute to tobacco,
its a game of semantics i have seen you play before,

its like saying the rats that eat GMOs become sterile, but unless you can show the pathway,
ie direct cause and effect then all the rats died of natural causes.

What exactly do you mean by that?

simply put you are what you eat,

Why should GMOs be subjected to more stringent testing than anything else?

adding third party genes to an unrelated organism is going to have effects that are not easily predictable.
do no harm FIRST

Do you think DNA is toxic?

are you arrogant enough to try to say we "FULLY" understand proteins,
and how changing DNA can effect different proteins, from genes we are not even looking at?

excuse me i think your "we know its safe" is arrogance bound with ignorance,
a very scary combination

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Oh. I thought you said it was a scientific principle. I didn't know you were talking about medical treatments. Last time I checked GMO crops were not used as medical treatments. Has something changed? Broken leg! Here, have some GMO corn!

to ensure that injuries are minimised

You said 100%. Are cars 100% safe? No one dies? No one is injured? Or are you moving your goalpost?

i am suggesting that mutation occurs every-time a gene is inserted using the bacteria method,
and in an area where we dont even bother looking for changes ie what is considered "junk DNA"

Are you a geneticist? What is the basis for your suggestion?

you are reverting to the tobacco industries defence,
if you cant show explicitly the cause/effect then there is no harm that you can directly attribute to tobacco,
its a game of semantics i have seen you play before,

No. There is and was plenty of evidence that tobacco was harmful. But you have misrepresented my question. It's something you do often.

its like saying the rats that eat GMOs become sterile, but unless you can show the pathway,
ie direct cause and effect then all the rats died of natural causes.

That bears no resemblance to what I said. Here is what I said:

What scientific basis suggest that there is "something" bad about GMOs?

My question had nothing to do with data or interpretation of data. It has nothing to do with experimentation at all. It has to do with a basis on which to form a hypothesis. What is the basis of the hypothesis that there is...something...dangerous about GMOs?

adding third party genes to an unrelated organism is going to have effects that are not easily predictable.

Are you a geneticist? What do you know about the predictability of mutation? Is it more likely in GMOs? Why?

are you arrogant enough to try to say we "FULLY" understand proteins,
and how changing DNA can effect different proteins, from genes we are not even looking at?

Are you so desperate in defending your claims that you have to resort to ad hominem arguments?

Oh. I thought you said it was a scientific principle. I didn't know you were talking about medical treatments. Last time I checked GMO crops were not used as medical treatments. Has something changed?

medicine is not based on science?
are you sure?

You said 100%. Are cars 100% safe? No one dies? No one is injured? Or are you moving your goalpost?

no but EVERY EFFORT is used to reduce or mitigate harm!!!!

Are you a geneticist? What is the basis for your suggestion?

no i am not a geneticist, i have been talking to some people who are that have raised some interesting questions

No. There is and was plenty of evidence that tobacco was harmful. But you have misrepresented my question. It's something you do often.

yes but without the EXACT cause and effect, tobacco was sold as safe, while the companies claimed public-ally it was safe, they had documents that proved they knew it was dangerous,
if a tobacco company can lie about safety for 20 years simply for profit,
why no BIOTECH?

What scientific basis suggest that there is "something" bad about GMOs?

the ability of the GMO lobby group to buy/silence any one any where
the growing lists of independent studies and the fact that 90% of the US population want them labelled so they can avoid them.

What do you know about the predictability of mutation? Is it more likely in GMOs? Why?

because of the use of the bacterial insertion technique, its crude and unpredictable

Are you so desperate in defending your claims that you have to resort to ad hominem arguments?

im sorry,
this debate is making me angry

we are not omnipotent,
we cant see into the future,
we are playing GOD with our children and their future,

we (me included) are arrogant and petulant like children with a magnifying glass,
feeling like nothing can go wrong,

there will be hell to pay if GMOs ruin the planet.

xploder

reply to post by Phage


i am going to take a break and cool off
sorry for name calling

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

medicine is not based on science?
are you sure?

Did I say that? I asked you if GMOs are used in medical treatment because that is the context of the quote you used. The question you should have just asked is, is science based on medical treatment?

no but EVERY EFFORT is used to reduce or mitigate harm!!!!

What harm do GMOs cause?

no i am not a geneticist, i have been talking to some people who are that have raised some interesting questions

Some people. Ok, but "interesting questions" doesn't really help much. And from what I've seen so far of your understanding of genetics I'm not confident that you understand those "interesting questions".

yes but without the EXACT cause and effect, tobacco was sold as safe, while the companies claimed public-ally it was safe, they had documents that proved they knew it was dangerous,
if a tobacco company can lie about safety for 20 years simply for profit,
why no BIOTECH?

None of what you said makes any sense in relation to GMOs. People have been eating GMOs for 20 years. Where is the harm? Where is the coverup? There were studies showing a connection between smoking and lung cancer. Yes. Tobacco denied the connection. Yes. What is missing in your equation is the studies showing a connection between eating GMOs and any health issues at all.

the ability of the GMO lobby group to buy/silence any one any where
the growing lists of independent studies and the fact that 90% of the US population want them labelled so they can avoid them.

How do you know if something is being silenced? I see examples of bad science been held up a evidence. Do you have a source for that 90% figure? California just voted against labeling. That doesn't seem to indicate that most people want it.

because of the use of the bacterial insertion technique, its crude and unpredictable

According to whom?

there will be hell to pay if GMOs ruin the planet.

You claim to have a scientific outlook but you don't seem to have paid any attention to the actual science concerning GMOs. You cannot provide a scientific basis for the starting point of the idea that GMOs could "ruin the planet". You cannot provide a reason to think there is something inherently dangerous about them. Can't you recognize the manipulation in that concept? How many times have we been warned that something new will "ruin the planet"? You need to take a balanced look at it. You have been terrified by the anti-GMO crowd because that is the only thing they can offer...fear. Lies, distortion, ignorance, bad science and mostly fear. They can't provide good science because good science does not support their position. Because you've swallowed everything they've said you won't look at the other side without bias.

Look at the science. It's there. And the science, the good science, does not show that there is something horrible hiding in the plants.

Tell EVER one you can about this.
are WE will be GM people, if your still alive.
Mutant!

What's crazy are the actual techniques they use for gene modification on plant organisms.

One such method is bioballistics where they literally shoot "a heavy metal coated with plasmid DNA" into the plant they are trying to transform.
( en.wikipedia.org... )

This doesn't sound very scientific to me.

It's like rolling the dice... "let's see what we can get?"

Nobody knows exactly what will happen.

I saw a documentary where they managed to get rid of one particular problem or increase resistance to something, only to create other unforeseen problems which were worse.

It's a crap shoot aimed at increasing profits.

The worst effect is when it makes the vegetable or fruit taste worse, or makes you feel bad; so then whats the point of preserving them.. they're already worthless.

I notice this especially with strawberries.

Unfortunately many people have such dull senses that they can't even tell that it tastes like crap or makes them feel bad, which is why the stuff gets implemented.

than more cabinet the louder the falls ... the steeper the further the jeep behind the tractor to go

The official word of science on GMO origin food is this:

from Forbes 9/20/2012, (John Entine, Skeptic Viewpoint)

There have been more than 100 peer-reviewed studies over the years—many by independent, non-industry scientists—that have demonstrated the safety of GM crops and food.

From a peer reviewed, most recent, definitively regarded study, which sought to examine the longest duration and most comprehensive 24 reports/studies in this 100 ct body of research; was reviewed and then passed to Journal in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 50, Issues 3–4, March–April 2012, Pages 1134–1148:

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. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

Highlights

► Effects of GM diets in all long-term and multigenerational studies were analyzed.
► No sign of toxicity in analyzed parameters has been found in long-term studies.
► No sign of toxicity in parameters has been found in multigenerational studies.
► The 90-day OECD Guideline seems adequate for evaluating health effects of GM diets.
► Benefits of harmonizing experimental protocols in fundamental research are discussed.

Regarding the top 24 comprehensive studies:

Sufficient toxicity observation period standard = rodent, 90 and 240 days, cow, 25 months (JoFACT: "The EFSA experts panel recommend that the use of 90-days studies in rodents should be considered for the detection of possible unintended effects in food and feed derived from GM plants")
Multigenerational observation period standard = rodent, 1 - 2 years, 2 - 5 generations
Definition of "toxicity" in the reports:
OECD Test Guideline No. 408 which targets for analyses, toxic indications are:

Feed consumption.
Body weight gain,
organ weights.
Blood cell count,
blood chemistry, (chemotoxic)
urine chemistry. (chemotoxic)
Histopathology (tissue damage)

This is our body of proof.

What was tested - Bt Cry1 and Cry1 corn
What we eat - Stacked Bt/HT corn

Unknown: The impacts beyond 240 days on human health are unknown. Former uses of Bt Cry1 and Cry2 toxins could be washed off. Now they cannot be.

Benefits: Farms save .004% of the value chain investment of sourcing on the production of food, i.e. net of the higher cost of seed and the drop in US corn demand by 40% since the 90's, versus the former chemical and labor expense. Corn Revenue $63.9 billion annually, pre-post harvest loss.

The Bottom Line

Total Annual Savings Benefit: $ 256 million USD net annually (about two month's worth of Crocs Shoes sales ).

TOTAL Risk: Unknown Human health impact after 240 days of 'chronic consumption' (the term used in the reports), innate immune system, adaptive immune system and resulting autoimmune impacts of Bt and Lipopolysaccharide signatures not studied, GI tract bacterial impacts on bacteriodetes/fermicutes equilibrium Prevotella, Bacteroides and Ruminococcus colony impacts - not studied, generational impacts not studied, long term GI organ impacts not studied, blood barrier transition impacts not studied, allergen acceptance chemotoxocology not studied, cognitive generational impacts, ...none of these were tested. These impact studies have been relegated to observation after rollout for consumption (OECD 408 and ESFA, 2008).

A GREAT DEAL! As a skeptic, I find absolutely nothing wrong here at all.