Widely Discredited Study that Fuelled Fear of GM ‘Frankenfoods’ Finally Retracted

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   


An arresting but widely criticized study that stoked fears about genetically modified foods (GMOs) was retracted Thursday.


The move was met with relief by scientists who heaped scorn on the French study after it was published last year. The study claimed a steady diet of genetically modified corn caused tumours in rats.

But observers say the damage will be hard to undo.

The retraction is “good news,” says biologist Robert Wager, at Vancouver Island University, who objected to the study from the outset. But he says “it’s worrisome it took over a year for the journal to do the right thing.”

It’s worrisome it took over a year for the journal to do the right thing

He predicts Gilles-Eric Seralini, of the University of Caen who led the study, will now be viewed as a martyr by believers in the dangers of GM crops and food. “The power of pseudo-science to generate fear must not be underestimated,” said Wager. “Once instilled, facts rarely dissipate that fear.”

The French study, published in journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, made headlines around the world a year ago. It claimed to have found evidence that rats fed a diet of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in the United States died earlier than those on a standard diet. It also said rats on the GM diet suffered from tumours, as well as severe liver and kidney damage.
Read more here at the National Post



This thread will probably be as popular as a rattlesnake in a sleeping bag but it will be good to reference to in other threads.

Well I can’t say I am surprised. After I read the report I thought the study was poorly conducted at best. I never did understand what kind of point they thought they could make by feeding strait roundup to them in water. Now it comes out the entire study was hogwash. Like I said I am not surprised.

You know if you have to falsify evidence to make a point your point isn’t worth making. Just remember the motto.
edit on 29-11-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

It claimed to have found evidence that rats fed a diet of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in the United States died earlier than those on a standard diet


And for the rebuttal:

gmoseralini.org...

*Just giving both sides to the coin.

- and on the other side -

Statement from Editor in Chief, who requested raw data since the paper came under scrutiny. It was found that:


Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal
variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the
treated groups.
Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not
reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.


Response from Editor in Chief
In layman's terms, the authors of the original study used rats that are predisposition for tumour growth, and they didn't use enough of them to eliminate normal tumour occurrence (in this specific type of rat) as a cause.

Meaning, a few of these rats normally develop the same amount of tumours without being exposed to anything.
edit on 29-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)


From the rebuttal: They author claims not to have used historical control data because the control groups are not fed strict diets, and quite possibly fed GMO food.


However, this clearly greatly enhances control variability
and heightens the risk of false negative findings (Cuffe, 2011). It is
now established that this concept should be used with caution.
There are several reasons for this. Control diets for rats are generally
not monitored, neither for pesticides (Hayes, 2004), nor for
chemicals leaching from cages or other environmental sources
(Howdeshell et al., 2003). This artificially enhances background effects.
The supplier even recognizes that their historical data come
from rats potentially fed GMOs since this was not controlled for
(Harlan communication), except in our experiment. Thus, it was
not appropriate for us to use historical control data. This is also
the reason why we did not use reference groups fed different
non-substantially equivalent diets, as they increase the standard
deviation of the control groups, hiding differential effects due to
treatments.


edit on 29-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)




I want to see a cage match between the editor in chief and the author of the study!
edit on 29-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Just like immunization fear mongering, climate change, and some other push button topics, the retraction here will likely do very little to assuage protests against, and resistance to the implementation or acceptance of GMO foods.

Irrational people do not respond to rational argument.




posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


There are many other studies out there. Just because one has come out as being false, does not make it true that GMO's are safe and healthy!

All I ask is for a choice to know whether or not what I buy has GMO food in it! Strikes me as quite odd that a product that is deemed to be so safe and the companies that back it are willing to spend so much money on preventing people like me from buying a product that does not contain something I willfully choose not to eat.....

Those whom think it is safe, eat it! I would just like to have a simple choice as to whether or not I eat a food product manufactured by a company whom is most know for producing poisons! (Agent Orange)


+6 more 
posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

Last sentence from the link.


Seralini and his team remain unrepentant, and allege that the retraction derives from the journal’s editorial appointment of biologist Richard Goodman, who previously worked for biotechnology giant Monsanto for seven years.

Hogwash, huh?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I'm glad I didn't need their study to know that playing God with food invites Satan to the dinner table every night.

Personally, I'll avoid GMO anything, where I'm able to tell that is what I'm looking at anyway.

Something about how varieties of it are outright shunned by animals...and they can't read studies. That's a hard thing for me to get past. Downright impossible, really.

There is also a long and infamous history of things marketed as safe because sufficient time hadn't been allowed yet to learn it wasn't safe. Society has medical and psych issues out the wazoo right now. Who knows if this has anything whatsoever to do with any of that either....but why add the question mark, if it's not required these days?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   


I suppose the squirrels are in on it as well?

I don't think either side knows the truth about GMO's and its effects yet. All I want is for everything to be labelled and let the public make the decision for themselves. If GMO is harmless why the fight to stop labeling?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Just a quick question. What exactly was nature doing wrong?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Carreau
If GMO is harmless why the fight to stop labeling?


Because its too expensive.. Now shut up and eat your pink slime and frankencorn..



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

AliceBleachWhite

Just like immunization fear mongering, climate change, and some other push button topics, the retraction here will likely do very little to assuage protests against, and resistance to the implementation or acceptance of GMO foods.

Irrational people do not respond to rational argument.





Drucilla, go away.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I think ti's strange. In my local newspaper I've caught references to legal authorities passing laws to prevent counties from regulating GMO.

Before it was hte church that ruled and now it's the people in lab coats. They don't preach religion, so I guess we should trust them? The preachers are preaching facts, but somehow I still don't trust them. Like another poster stated, we play god with our food and satan comes to the dinner table.

I can see the person in the lab coat saying something like "Look, nothing we do is going to be perfect, but it's better than what we used to deal with." People in lab coats are very intelligent and also understandably correct, since they employ facts, not hearsay. But somehow I still can't hand them the rights to my body and mind and also distrust giving them the rights to all life on earth. Something in me can't do it, maybe it's my instincts. Maybe it's because I believe even scientists, the most disciplined of all people, still can't overcome whatever it's that makes us flawed. I believe in hte power of equations and technology, but they're not infallible.

Odd thing is, I've very likely already ate GMO without realizing it. And who knows what else I've been exposed to in the tap water and in the food I eat. The world is getting too 1984 for me and I've never even read 1984; only seen references to it. I'm not madly (and/or violently) opposed, just a skeptical layperson. I believe in the future. I believe in people working together. Curious how I can feel so skeptical of all these things and yet also love technology so much. I've realized before that a fascination with computers and technology doesn't always jive with hte reality of these things. See, I love computers, but I don't exactly like the idea of mind reading and psuedo mind-control. Yet, it's inevitably some form of mind reading and/or mind control will occur as a result of this and other technologies. Who knows what else is out there in the pipeline that will cause me to be weary. Reality is never as simple or as fun as science fiction and is in fact very disturbing by comparison.

I think in all likelihood I'm just getting old and not keeping up.
edit on 29-11-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

jonnywhite
I think in all likelihood I'm just getting old and not keeping up.
edit on 29-11-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)


Well, maybe you are getting old, but the fact that your part of a conspiracy forum says a lot. TPTB will always be miles ahead of us. I think the key is to try and keep life simple. Have faith and use discernment .



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Grimpachi

I never did understand what kind of point they thought they could make by feeding strait roundup to them in water. Now it comes out the entire study was hogwash. Like I said I am not surprised.

edit on 29-11-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


If you will recall the study(s) that said that saccerine was poison was done in the same fashion. It was never retracted and ushered in a failed ulcer medicine as a replacement.

I for one am coming about a bit. I like the idea of my body being a personal experiment for industry. There is no real reason my DNA should be subject to any legal or moral restrictions from food, chemicals in water or other. Being part of a great experiment, even if it is for profit, is kind of cool when you really think about it. Science in this area is rarely wrong and usually admits freely to anything that might be of concern, so experiment away.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 



All I ask is for a choice to know whether or not what I buy has GMO food in it! Strikes me as quite odd that a product that is deemed to be so safe and the companies that back it are willing to spend so much money on preventing people like me from buying a product that does not contain something I willfully choose not to eat.....

It seems every time something is said about GMOs the conversation drifts into labeling. For me the labeling subject is an issue upon itself which deserves its own thread and indeed there is one already or maybe a few. I am not really against it but I am not really for it. If someone could provide evidence GMOs were harmful I would change my mind. Which brings me to the first part of your post.


There are many other studies out there. Just because one has come out as being false, does not make it true that GMO's are safe and healthy!

Look I have tried I really have. I didn’t know much on the subject up until the last year or so. I wanted for once to run with the heard and be up in arms about this so I asked for studies in numerous threads an all-out call for them to be provided or at the very least the info that persuaded others that GMOs were harmful. I thought there would be a wealth of solid info like you claim there is but over and over this study and another about pig stomach irritation (flawed study as well) kept being presented. So maybe you know of something no one else could admonish in those threads so feel free to post it here but until I see some evidence I just can’t follow blindly.



Those whom think it is safe, eat it! I would just like to have a simple choice as to whether or not I eat a food product manufactured by a company whom is most know for producing poisons! (Agent Orange)

Going via the agent orange comment I assume you are referring to Monsanto so does that mean you are fine with eating GM foods from the other four companies?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 








I suppose the squirrels are in on it as well?

I don't think either side knows the truth about GMO's and its effects yet. All I want is for everything to be labelled and let the public make the decision for themselves. If GMO is harmless why the fight to stop labeling?

Funny I didn't know that was considered scientific study. Which journal was that published in? So what was the control how many times was it done? I bet I can tell you which one had the peanut butter on it. LOL.

Are you sure there was a squirrel could be birds or chipmunks? Hey it could have even been a human. That's what my money is on. I mean I am pretty gullible but not that gullible I stopped believing everything posted on the Internet a long time ago. Anyway I'm sure that's convincing enough for some and I think you may have a really hit there if you start a thread with that evidence. However it really doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the OP. It was cute though. Thanks for sharing.



I also remember a time when people claimed that if you ate too much food that had been cooked in a microwave you would get radiation sickness. The article is about pseudoscience claims doing damage even after they have been proven false which now that I think about it is true. I still avoid standing near microwave ovens when they are cooking something I guess the subliminally its still there even though I know better.
edit on 29-11-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Grimpachi
The move was met with relief by scientists who heaped scorn on the French study after it was published last year.


Sounds like the scientists had already made up their minds and was hoping for confirmation of their stance.

Sounds a little like confirmation bias to me, you're not supposed to search for information to confirm pre-existing views, the evidence itself should lead the way.

I don't trust this one bit, GMO companies are some of the most corrupt corporations on the planet, just look at Monsanto, that they would try to influence scientific studies is pretty much a given, they're already entrenched in the political system with numerous officials in the Obama administration.

I'm not saying this particular revelation is bought and paid for but it's a given that they will try to influence the publics perception of GMO's by any means neccessary. Modern science is a whore and despite what many pseudo-skeptics would like to believe scientists are people just like me and you and their minds are not immune to being biased.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

CallYourBluff
Just a quick question. What exactly was nature doing wrong?


Everything apparently..

Just about all modern foods have been altered and tampered with to provide bigger, better yields, different flavours and different colours.

Why no outcry when strawberries were created?

Or hybrid corn that's been eaten for decades?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


The study was not by any means flawless, and I cringe every time I see references to it trying to prove something to non-scientists, but I have read of many others and countless anecdotal reports that provide better evidence of harm. I know from my own job hunting that Monsanto controls most research that is allowed on their products, so finding proper peer reviewed research is hard to come by. I also know that the fact that Monsanto pays big bucks to science departments puts a big damper on what they allow to be said or researched, and officials of any of them can often be the biggest scumbags of the community, because funding is their primary interest, not truth.
edit on 29-11-2013 by sorgfelt because: grammar
edit on 29-11-2013 by sorgfelt because: more grammar



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
What, they were threatened with torture and death. Its been way more than 1 study and they won't win at all they are absolute murderers and need imprisonment. We refuse for them to take the resources of this planet which we all own equally and they only get their portion of the 1/7 billion and not one item more, its OUR PLANET, OUR LAND AND OUR RESOURCES, not theirs. And we don't like being guinea pigs. They can conduct experiments on their own bodies for thousands of years under our teams of recorders NOT THEIRS, if they like that crapola poison so much. PERIOD.

And threatening scientists just makes me want to grab millions of people with bullhorns and throw them in prison for their lives.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I only see two lines of thought on this topic.


1. Plants have been around "millions upon millions" years. "Evolving" in a system of "NO" design. Plants got to where they are supporting all the creatures that have ever lived, with no guidance just mutation, survival of the fittest, etc. etc.

And you really want to mess with "millions" of years of RANDOM "evolution" because science has tinkered with GMO's since the 1970's and they say that it's ok?

"Millions" vs the '70's ?????



How did humanity ever survive up til now?

No intelligent guidance is the model of our ecosystem right?

So let's inject something into the ecosystem that has never been part of the ecosystem?


Or....


2. This planet and it's eco system was carefully designed by a Creator who might have just known what he was doing.


No, wait, we have scientists from the '70's that are gonna "fix" everything!






edit on 29-11-2013 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join