It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Just a quick question. What exactly was nature doing wrong?
Former Monsanto employee put in charge of GMO papers at journal Richard E. Goodman Richard E. Goodman New article exposes industry attempts to control scientific publishing
Independent Science News and Earth Open Source, 20 May 2013
Just months after a study was published showing that two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and Roundup herbicide, damaged the health of rats, the journal that published the study appointed a former Monsanto scientist to decide which papers on GM foods and crops should be published, a new article reveals. Monsanto and GM foods suffered a storm of bad publicity after a study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012 reported that a GM corn and Roundup caused organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death in rats. But in early 2013 Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto researcher with close ties to the biotech industry, joined the senior editorial staff of FCT. Goodman was given the specially created position of associate editor for biotechnology. - See more at: earthopensource.org...
reply to post by AlphaHawk
Just pointing out that we've been meddling long before the 70's.
It could be argued that it's semantics but cross pollination and hybridization change the genetic makeup of a plant just as much as GM.
Just a quick question. What exactly was nature doing wrong?
Do you live naked in a cave in East Africa, venturing forth every day to gather edible plants and kill wild animals for food? No? You wear clothes, you have a house, you eat domesticated animals? Then I guess you think there's something wrong with nature. (You're not one of those electricity-users, are you? That stuff is horribly unnatural.)
If the study in the OP in "widely discredited",then take a look at the below linked thread-
18million Americans suffering from gluten disorders linked to GMOs...
That must be made up by anti GMO fanatics,surely?
No actually its from data already released by the US Department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency records, medical journal reviews as well as international research.
In other words the USDA and the EPA knew about this,but did nothing to protect the people.
Who would have thought it possible that those meant to protect people from such things,are actually doing no such thing?
Genetically modified foods such as soy and corn may be responsible for a number of gluten-related maladies
Back in 1999, a story by the UK press Independent reported:
...that Monsanto employees don't eat their very own GM (genetically modified) foods, in their High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire UK facility. .
Of the 1999 article, Greenpeace locked on to the news story, reportedly exposed by Friends of the Earth, was subsequently spread by the local and international media.
(no reference found on the FoE site)
"The firm running the canteen at Monsanto's pharmaceuticals factory at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, serves only GM-free meals, Friends of the Earth said. In a notice in the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by the Granada Group, said it had taken the decision "to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."
The notice was posted by the Sutcliffe Catering Group......not their employers, Monsanto.
That UK facility is now closed.
But let's look at the facts as described by the initial story.....
1) One Monsanto facility, in the UK, in 1999
2) The decision was posted by a contracted caterer, employed by Monsanto.
3) This story was never confirmed. (denied later)
Lately, the current anti-GMO activists have renewed (recycled) this story.
Richard E. Goodman, really? No coincidence here. Guess it's time to believe him with every study he retracts. Now eat up comrades.
Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected.
Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. The peer review process is not perfect, but it does work. The journal is committed to getting the peer-review process right, and at times, expediency might be sacrificed for being as thorough as possible. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers. Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peer-review. The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog.
The mission of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.
The OECD provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems. We work with governments to understand what drives economic, social and environmental change. We measure productivity and global flows of trade and investment. We analyse and compare data to predict future trends. We set international standards on a wide range of things, from agriculture and tax to the safety of chemicals.
A sufficient number of animals should be used so that at the end of the study enough animals in every group are available for thorough biological evaluation. After considerable discussion, it was agreed that for rodents each dose group and concurrent control group should contain at least 10 animals of each sex.
Similarly, there is no firm recommendation for the use of specific strains as it is considered that at the present time the state of development testing provides no firm justification for such a recommendation.
In toxicity studies, Wistar Han (WH) and Sprague Dawley (SD) rat strains are both utilized and acceptable for EU and US test guidelines. In general, however, WH are preferentially used in Europe and SD rats are generally preferred in the US.
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!