GMO Are Harmful Food Study Validated By European Food Safety Authority

A study which showed rats getting cancer tumours from GMO food was attacked by various MSM corporates whores of monsanto,etc.saying the methodology was wrong.

A review by the European Food Safety Authority has confirmed methodology was correct and actually more rigorous then required.


"After vehemently criticizing a researcher's groundbreaking study and inappropriately calling into question the validity of his rigorous scientific research methods, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has made a surprising about-face. According to new reports, the agency recently vindicated Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini's published paper on the long-term health damage caused by eating Monsanto's genetically-modified (GM) NK603 corn, affirming that the study is, in fact, valid..."

www.naturalnews.com...

It seems the only way such a study would not be valid is if the mice ate non GMO foods. Because they were locked up and fully controlled this would not be likely to happen in a gmo effects study. Wish they would have said what about it made it invalid. Was it a certain pesticide on the GMO that weren't accounted for? Or too much of an older GMO food so maybe moldy? I'd love to hear their justification. They often throw these statements out but do not provide specifics. It's more likely the protective factors of food from Mother Nature were not present and therefore allowed mutations to run amok.

If someone wants to live on GMO food by all means let them but don't take the choice away is what I say. Keep crops separate and controlled and let the longitudinal study begin. Regardless of what it does or does not do its an inaliable right for each human to have acess to food they deem healthy and fit for them.

There is nothing in the EFSA report which validates Seralini's "study".
There is no "about face" on the original critism of Seralin's "study".

Naturalnews (as usual) has grossly distorted even what Seralini said about the EFSA statement on testing with whole foods.

reply to post by beckybecky


I am curious about why the article says this:

But now the EFSA is essentially admitting that Prof. Seralini was right all along, and that his research methods are, in fact, more robust than currently accepted methods. So, the agency is adopting many of them and making them official standards for modern food safety research

But upon looking at the EFSA Report, it does not mention nor reference Gilles-Eric Seralini's methods at all.

Why would they adopt someone methods but not cite them?

Phage you are very quick to dismiss the entire premise of the topic at hand. Have you done some prior reading in this matter? If so, you demonstrate remarkable foresight.

I have a question for you - do you think that Monsanto is an ethically sound entity?

I mean, they deliberately ensure that a farmer has to buy from them year after year, using science to prevent the re-germination of the crop seed they sell. Is this ethical? If not (and there are many other examples of such unethical conduct) then why are you so quick to jump to their defence?

Living on the premise 'no smoke without fire' I try and stear clear of GMO 'food' better safe than sorry,
One of those health blogs also showed a study of pigs stomachs fed on GMO foodstuffs, even I could see from the photos that the pigs stomach did not look 'right'.

Why can't Monsanto just throw the towel in and move on? People don't trust them and refuse to be force-fed this stuff.

Dear Monsanto - nobody likes or trusts a pushy salesman who won't fock off. The more you insist we have it, the less convinced we become. We suspect you have a fortune invested in this and need a return and that this is your only concern. Unlucky. Bad investment.

We don't trust you. We don't like you. It's over with this schitt.

Close the door on your way out.

Originally posted by Dianec
It seems the only way such a study would not be valid is if the mice ate non GMO foods. Because they were locked up and fully controlled this would not be likely to happen in a gmo effects study. Wish they would have said what about it made it invalid. Was it a certain pesticide on the GMO that weren't accounted for? Or too much of an older GMO food so maybe moldy? I'd love to hear their justification. They often throw these statements out but do not provide specifics. It's more likely the protective factors of food from Mother Nature were not present and therefore allowed mutations to run amok.

If someone wants to live on GMO food by all means let them but don't take the choice away is what I say. Keep crops separate and controlled and let the longitudinal study begin. Regardless of what it does or does not do its an inaliable right for each human to have acess to food they deem healthy and fit for them.

there is NO way too keep them separate.. pollen spores travel.

it may already be too late to stop them from cross pollinating or hybridizing native strains.

I remember in the 90's learning about how special, ancient. pure and sacred Mexican corn strains. And how worried people were over GMO destroying it. Supposedly, some corn has already been forever ruined/altered by GMO.

a good analogy I guess would be
honey bees versus Africanized honey bees... there is no way to cohabitate

It's a shame that some people think there is still some sort of scientific or medical uncertainty regarding the dangers of GMO. The very premise of the technology is disastrously unsound. To know the tech is unsafe, all you need to do is familiarize yourself with the exact processes involved.

"Seeds of Deception" was published a decade ago featuring a former Monsanto researcher. It was one of the first to really detail the process and is still considered one of the most authoritative. One gem is: the entire premise is based on the patently false notion that one gene = one trait. So, you look for a trait, ID the associated gene, isolate it, prep it, and transfer it. Right? Well... Turns out most genes have multiple traits. Transfer a gene that may extend shelf life and you end up getting hair folicles growing in your mouth.

Or how about the RNA beacons attached to the isolated gene fragment to ensure it is constantly in the "on" expression. Genes, normally are either active or inactive based on a wide number of variables. It's a complex interaction of checks and balances. They were never meant to be permanently "on". The significance of this should not be lost on most people - many substances are beneficial in small amounts, but end up being harmful in larger amounts.

Or how about the fact that actually getting the isolated gene into the target genome is (in most cases) done by a literal gun. The process is akin to taking a cannon, a hundred bulls, and a hundred china shops, and launching the bulls one by one into the shops, until you finally end up with a mostly undamaged china bull. Not the best anology but it's a funny image in my head. Basically, the target genome sustains massive damage. This can actually lead to completely new forms of toxins never seen in nature before.

There are half a dozen other examples. Each of these, if properly understood, would be a reason in and of itself to ban this technology. I am baffled at how some people can be educated in science and not understand these simple concepts.

Whether or not this latest study is validated is tragically besides the point. We already know. We knew before the first round ever hit the market.

I know Phage doesn't need support from anyone, but he is right. There is nothing in any of those links showing that EFSA even mentioned Seralini's study. Remember, it was not just EFSA that criticized his study, six countries' food safety agencies said the same. A large part of the problem was that Seralini refused to release his raw data, a necessity for any scientific study.

So, the headline is misleading, and NaturalNews lowers its reputation still further. (If that is possible.)

Originally posted by HanzHenry

Originally posted by Dianec
It seems the only way such a study would not be valid is if the mice ate non GMO foods. Because they were locked up and fully controlled this would not be likely to happen in a gmo effects study. Wish they would have said what about it made it invalid. Was it a certain pesticide on the GMO that weren't accounted for? Or too much of an older GMO food so maybe moldy? I'd love to hear their justification. They often throw these statements out but do not provide specifics. It's more likely the protective factors of food from Mother Nature were not present and therefore allowed mutations to run amok.

If someone wants to live on GMO food by all means let them but don't take the choice away is what I say. Keep crops separate and controlled and let the longitudinal study begin. Regardless of what it does or does not do its an inaliable right for each human to have acess to food they deem healthy and fit for them.

there is NO way too keep them separate.. pollen spores travel.

it may already be too late to stop them from cross pollinating or hybridizing native strains.

I remember in the 90's learning about how special, ancient. pure and sacred Mexican corn strains. And how worried people were over GMO destroying it. Supposedly, some corn has already been forever ruined/altered by GMO.

a good analogy I guess would be
honey bees versus Africanized honey bees... there is no way to cohabitate

edit on 22-8-2013 by HanzHenry because: addition

I can see that. It seems however that with a huge population increase we are going to need alternative ways to insure food availability stays steady. People want to survive any and everything and have made this darn near possible minus old age so the trade off is find a way to feed a species that does not follow the order of natural selection. I don't want to eat anything that isn't organic but I also see why this has become an issue. They absolutely do need to work on a way to protect the natural though. To continue to contaminate is to choose for all of us. If they can outsmart Mother Nature they can figure this out. I mean humans are the masters of everything right? To be short sided on this is just like being short sided with fukushima or outsourcing labor. It sounds good for the short run but thinking things through should be a requirement before implementing anything that can affect the masses.

reply to post by beckybecky


So if you feed rats corn and only corn they get sick and die? Is this really news?

What is so ground-breaking about this? Correct me if im wrong, but his experiments contained NO control group that were fed a non-gmo food. Why would he not do something so obvious and necessary?

Originally posted by pikestaff
Living on the premise 'no smoke without fire' I try and stear clear of GMO 'food' better safe than sorry,
One of those health blogs also showed a study of pigs stomachs fed on GMO foodstuffs, even I could see from the photos that the pigs stomach did not look 'right'.

Here are the shocking pictures what GMO food does.

Just look at tumors.


now those tumors are in you or your child.

remember GMO also has roundup weed killer at toxic levels.


remember these pictures when go to GMO foods.


www.naturalnews.com...

reply to post by beckybecky

Dear beckybecky,

It is possible that GMO foods are dangerous. I don't happen to know.

The link you provided refers, yet again, to the Seralini study and repeats the unproven (and probably false) claim that the EFSA has accepted Seralini's results. I have seen no indication that they have.

The pictures, showing abnormal mice, came from where? Seralini's study? Something unrelated? Who knows? The article doesn't indicate where they came from.

Look, everybody knows the Seralini study and his results are controversial. If GMO corn is so terribly bad, where are the other studies showing this? Is Seralini the only one who has obtained these results? It's not science if the findings can't be replicated.

I understand that there is fear over GMOs. But there doesn't seem to be a sufficient scientific basis to support these fears. Point me to another study, that isn't so controversial, then will have something to talk about.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952


It is possible that GMO foods are dangerous. I don't happen to know.

Dear Charles, Ignorance is bliss.

Dont watch this documentary, it will burst your bubble.


www.youtube.com...

"Genetic Roulette” draws a connection between the introduction of genetically engineered
foods in the United States over the past two decades and rising disease rates within the U.S.
population, especially amongst children, during the same time period.

Monsanto's strong arm tactics, the FDA's fraudulent policies, and how the USDA
ignores a growing health emergency are also laid bare here.

The manner in which the FDA allowed these foods onto the market without safety testing or labeling, over the objections of its own scientists, and the tactics used by corporations that produce GE seeds, such as Monsanto, to keep it that way. napavalley.patch.com...

reply to post by burntheships

Dear burntheships,

All right, on your advice I won't watch the video. Partially because it's an hour and a half, and partially because I don't have a bubble. Honestly, I don't know whether GMO corn or other food is safe or not. Since Obama has said he is the science President, I'll follow his lead and wait for a good study demonstrating the dangers.

But I did read your comments.

"Genetic Roulette” draws a connection between the introduction of genetically engineered
foods in the United States over the past two decades and rising disease rates within the U.S.
population, especially amongst children, during the same time period.

This tells me that there is a correlation in time, but does not show that one caused the other. If that evidence existed, it would be released as a scientific study, not as a paperback with a dramatic cover.

I still have paperbacks reporting that the US would be in an Ice Age in 2000, and a brochure that claimed Alar, used in apples, was poisoning kids.

Monsanto's strong arm tactics, the FDA's fraudulent policies, and how the USDA
ignores a growing health emergency are also laid bare here.

While I don't know, I'm willing to accept that all those agencies are faulty, or evil, or whatever you'd like to call them, but that does not show that GMOs are bad, just that those organizations are.

My understanding is that the FDA is operating under a set of rules and policies which were established 20 years ago. It may be time to change their policies, but that is a Congressional action. (Although, since it's an executive agency, and Obama has been doing things with agency rules without going to Congress, I suppose you could say that this is Obama's fault for not providing new directives to the FDA.)

With respect,
Charles1952

An update.

The journal in which that study was published, has withdrawn it.

Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology

Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.

The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper.

Edit - I see now the retraction already has its own thread, but I suppose it's nice to bookend this one as well, for future readers.

reply to post by alfa1


The new Associate Editor of the FCT which retracted the study, used to work for Monsanto.





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

PRESS RELEASE

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.[1] 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.[2] 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...

alfa1
An update.

The journal in which that study was published, has withdrawn it.

Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology

Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.

The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper.

Edit - I see now the retraction already has its own thread, but I suppose it's nice to bookend this one as well, for future readers.

edit on pmSaturdayfpm1 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

I'm still avoiding eating too much GM food or the animals that it is fed to. I don't mind eating a little occasionally but only a fool would eat it all the time. Anyone who wants to eat it all the time, have at it... but don't say I have no rights to avoid it and don't restrict my ability to know what foods that it is in.

dusty1
reply to post by alfa1

 

The new Associate Editor of the FCT which retracted the study, used to work for Monsanto.

Are you implying that this fact somehow negates the serious flaws contained in the original study? Or are you so blinded by your agreement with the study's conclusions that you're unable to see that those flaws exist? You shouldn't accept bad science just because you like the results.