What anti-GMO activists are billing as the most expensive and comprehensive longterm study of the impact of GMO crops and pesticides is set to be announced next week in London, according to a press release by the mystery group organizing it that calls itself “Factor GMO.”
The news of the pending announcement was completely ignored by the mainstream press but ballyhooed endlessly by a loosely linked consortium of GMO opponents, including GMWatch and SustainablePulse, which is run by Henry Rowlands, a well-known anti-GMO activist, web developer and publicist. Both are dedicated anti-GMO sites.
Questions are already emerging about how the study came to be, what scientists might be involved and who is funding this mystery research. In an email exchange with the Genetic Literacy Project, Ivan Lambert, International Coordinator for Factor GMO, claimed that the scientists involved in the study would come from a “neutral” background and not from the biotech industry or the anti-GMO movement.
“This of course means that all results will be published, if they show the GM crop or associated pesticide to be ‘safe’ or ‘harmful’,” he wrote.
No other details were released about the “independent” researchers who will oversee the project, other than the statement that “the scientists on the study review board are internationally respected experts in their fields from the U.S., Italy, and Russia.”
Lambert’s claim is a non sequitur. The fact that the results are expected to be published does not support the claim that the researchers are indeed “neutral”. Gilles-Eric Seralini published his results but they were cherry-picked to fit a pre-determined conclusion. For the scientists to be neutral, they would have to be the best in the field, regardless of their background or affiliation, and there could be no clear ties to activist anti or pro GMO groups. There would also have to be a pre announced commitment to release all the raw data–something Seralini pledged to do but then reneged on. Despite the claim that the study will be free of politics, initial signs to not look promising:
Karl Haro von Mogel, founder of Biology Fortified, offered his analysis of what might be in store.
The website of the “Factor GMO” project contains only an image* advertising its future launch on the 11th, and a contact email. The domain is registered to Elena A Sharoykina, who runs the National Association for Genetic Safety (NAGS) in Russia, an NGO that campaigns against GMOs.
The NAGS has a questionable history when it comes to scientific claims about genetically engineered crops. They organized the conference where Russian scientist Irina Ermakova publicized her heavily-criticized claims that rats fed genetically engineered soy were infertile. The NAGS is also the source for a second “study” (translated) claiming that hamsters had altered sex ratios and infertility. The second one was publicized by Jeffrey Smith, who said that they also found hair growing in the mouths of these hamsters. Neither study has ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and the history of producing far-reaching claims based on these science-by-press-release studies does not inspire confidence.
Lambert confirmed that NAGS, a virulently anti-GMO group, has been involved in the conception and organization of the study, but claims “the NGO – NAGS is in no way involved in the experimental part.” The GLP has pressed Lambert and Factor GMO about the details on the relationship and how the study came to be and was funded but has not received a reply.
As Biofortified notes, the press release by Sustainable plus claims that will be the first ever independent international study. That’s not true, and according to Lambert, who reached out to Karl Haro von Mogel and the GLP, they never made that assertion. There have been hundreds of independent international studies conducted on GE crops over the years, some of which are in the GENERA database. Independent research is more common than is often claimed, and anyone can see this for themselves from a joint GLP-Biofortified infographic.
The scientific literature on the safety of GMOs for consumption
(jpg | PDF with links)
The GLP will continue to monitor this story and report back if Factor GMO clarifies its claims of independence, explains how scientists were identified and selected and fully details its funding sources and commitment to releasing the full raw data from its research.
Rrrright! This is the scientific equivalent of running with scissors.
They just might have Mike Adams rev up his spanking new Spectrum Analyzer, just for the occasion !
To even conduct the study, you would have to start with an assumption that there is some material difference in the composition of food and feed products derived from a ge variety from its non ge isolene. If you’ve got $25 million, why not just analyze the corn, wheat, rice, papaya or whatever harvested product and analyze the hell out of it to locate and identify exactly what constituent that shows that might be attributable to biotech mediated trait insertion that might have corrupted normal patterns of protein transcription or plant metabolism that is the culprit, and then feed these to rats in varying concentrations. Then if we observe something bad in rats at certain concentrations, then we can determine whether there is anything that is of any conceivable biological consequence than other bad things that already occur in foods, like say solanine in tomatoes and potatoes.
I am also skeptical of what “independent” means. I am skeptical that the people behind the study will define independent as not having a personal financial or professional self interest in the successful commercialization of ge crop varieties. Even by that definition, independent is harly synonomous with “objective” For instance, I would hardly characterize Seralini as an objective researcher on this topic just because he may not have a personal financial stake in ge commercialiazation. Additionally, I would not concede that he has no personal, professional or economic, self interest in discrediting genetic engineering as a component of plant breeding. And how far do you take the perception of independence? Do you disqualify a scientists who has absolutely no stake in commercialization of ge crops but is employed by a university that accepted a grant from Monsanto, even if the grant was scholarship money used by a student of organic agriculture? And, there are plenty of groups who just summarily label even independent researchers by anti-gmo standards as not independent simply because if they fail to find ge varieties as bad — Well then, they can’t truly be independent then can they.
I agree with almost everything you say. But in your first line you say, “To even conduct the study, you would have to start with an assumption that there is some material difference in the composition of food and feed products derived from a ge variety from its non ge isolene.” However, from a statistical standpoint this is exactly wrong. To prove an effect of a modified gene, you first assume the populations are the same (null hypothsis H=0), the experimental results, if statistically significant prove an effect.
Well said. I think I would amend the statement to say, “To think that there is any point in conducting a whole food feeding study, you assume that there could very well be some material difference in the composition of the food and feed products . . .”, I wasn’t attempting to comment on how such a study would be technically conducted. My main point was that we have direct ways to actually measure and quantify any material compositional differences, if any, and feeding isolates of any novel proteins in say corn would be more valuable than feeding the whole corn.
Maybe I have missed something, but has there ever been a project touted by ge skeptics that could be pointed to that said, “Aha, we analyzed the composition of ge X and found that it always had this particular component that was always lacking in non ge parent. We characterized it and have reason to believe it is a carcinogen.” It is always, there is some mysterious, sinister “gmoness” quality that we cannot rule out unless we feed a lot of it to rats and then dissect them to see if we find any indicators of problems, even though we have not bothered to utilize means to look directly for what that quality is or have any valid mechanism to explain how or why it should be there, and any observations could be explained by poor interpretation of data or attributable to any number of causes that had absolutely nothing to do with ge.
As other commenters here and elsewhere have pointed out, there are so many confounders — What is properly compared to what? Do you compare a ge variety with its isolene and what exactly is the isolene. Wouldn’t both ge and isolene need to be grown in same field the same year under identical husbandry — a ge variety grown in a drought in Louisiana may differ in composition from the same ge variety or its isolene grown in good conditions in Minnesota. How do you rule out that any effect is due to growing conditions, not whether ge or not. Can you design a study that doesn’t just show a diet made of corn is nutritionally deficient especially if the control is a group of rats fed a nutritionally balanced diet. I’d like to see a group fed a dosage of heirloom tomatoes.
I hope not, but I suspect that the study will be Seralini on steroids. (edited to put in paragraph breaks)
The fact that they include pesticides makes me think it will probably be biased, but it seems like they might be having issues even funding this so not too worried at this point.
Given that we have done this experiment with farm animals in this country since 1996 and there is no effect, why do people even bother with this test? The number of farm animals “tested” is much much much higher than anything they could do in the laboratory. The evidence is in and it is definitive. Anything other than “no effect” in their tests must be treated with extreme skepticism.
Why test for cancer in a group of smokers? There’s maybe one in a hundred or a thousand that actually has a cancer. Fewer still that can be traced directly to cigarette smoking. Fewer still that can be proven, given Tobacco scientists and doctors reports. statistically, if you use Big Tobacco’s data, NO ONE HAS EVER GOTTEN LUNG CANCER FROM SMOKING. Are you seeing a parallel, or would you like me to spell it out for you? We’ve been down this road. These corporations are doing exactly the same thing with the same people and the same reports. the same government infiltration. The same research. Even the same advertising. Jon Entine is a prime example.
Same people? Those same people must be on the plus side of 100 years old by now. Jon Entine looks pretty good for a man of his age ! :)
My point is if there were a problem, farmers/ livestock producers, etc would have found it. I am not talking about Big Ag.
Being a member of a family that runs a large hog farm, I cannot think of a reason why farmers would not be the first complaining if a new feed caused adverse effects on their livestock. My point is the experiment has already been done; by farmers with millions and millions of animals for the past 18 years.
Not only would farmers be the first to complain, but as you know European farmers have been using GMO feed from North America for over a decade now. And none of them have ever noticed any effects on their animals. None!
And you just know French and Italian bureaucrats would LOVE to sue an American GMO corporation.
Maybe it isnt that noticeable. But you are right, we would notice something since gmos have been used since the 90s. We might notice increases in autism, cancer, obesity, oh wait…
If you believe the Serelini et al rat stuff, it would be very noticeable. That fact plus the lack of statistical significance and “data-picking” lead me to totally dismiss Serelini.
Anything other than a call for precaution when introducing foreign proteins and pesticides in our food is borderline criminal intent. I say this because our children cannot choose to avoid GMOs and many parents still do not know what they are. It is a social injustice issue.So a study MUST be done to analyze all aspects of GMOs and it must include the pesticides for which GMOs are engineered to withstand and are heavily doused with before, during, and after the growing season. We are thrilled that world leaders in our cause are stepping up and supporting scientists who are true scientists, ones who question rather than negate evidence, scientist who wonder rather than create cooked up evidence for chemical company benefactors. ANY scientist who speaks poorly of a study to investigate GMOs is not a real scientist. And any supporter of GMOs is not willing to see the truth, that mothers around the world are reporting that their children get better when they get off GMOs/pesticides and eat organic. No one can tell us any different. Nothing a GMO scientist can say can replace the babies and children we have lost, repair the Crohn’s disease, allergies, autism, auto immune, depression or cancer in our children. GMOs and pesticides are NOT feeding the world as intended, they are making the world sick. They will find this in the study, I am sure, because that is simply what they do.
A few documented facts perhaps would help your cause.
Please tell this forum, what tests not already done in the evaluation of all GE crops would you like to see added and why?
Well fancy seeing you here Robert.
You might be interested to know that the main contributor to the study is Pascal Najadi the president of the former swiss Merchant Bank. One of Mr. Najadi’s clients/ partners Is none other than Novartis. Novartis owns a Swiss seed company that produces GMO seeds. Having this connection hardly qualifies the study as being unbiased.
In fairness, it is rather odd that the main scientist, a Russian woman is ANTI GMO. Very bizarre.
I believe the entire study to be a scam. the donations have been sent to numerous personal pay pal accounts in Russia with no record of where the funds are now.
well said…precisely
Larkin Curtis Hannah RobertWager
The absolutist, arrogant saviour complex of the you and the status quo is flabbergasting.
When science fails us we only have correlation to help us. Remember the tobacco industry and Monsanto DDT FAIL????
The scientific process is failing us SO MUCH that mothers are paying to test their excrements for Glysophates/ROUNDUP. The results so far have been terrifying. These women are finding more Glysophates in their fatty breast milk than in their urine which means that this stuff does not pass through our system like “science” claims.
Round-up is a chelator and disrupts important nutrients needed for whole health. The industry led science ignores that humans are made up of more than just cells. WE ARE 90% BACTERIA and of the same bacteria plants rely on for their nutrients! All the new gut (Microbiome) science that is being mapped, realizes the important pathways our flora is to our whole health.
If you are so BLIND (Larkin,Wager) to realize the same bunk science we have been fed for the last 15 years is not slowly killing the planet, then you must have brain damage from this same poison.
The industry and it’s huge supply chain have a lot to lose. So there are many reason for them to be employing the social engineering that has created this culture war.
The industry continue to discredit multi-disciplinarian thinkers (Taleb, Seneff, Shiva, now Nye etc.) that are looking at the broader genetics of our ecosystems and understand the most influential science in our current food system… POLITICAL.
Big Ag is spending millions paying politicians, SuperPACs, and other mouthpieces (Mark Lynas) to read a teleprompter and to change their minds about GMOs. Read these leaked documents outlining the plan (w/script) years before Mark Lynas made his public charade in the EU. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/oct/20/gm-food
And we need all this for what? For higher yields, profits, dirty paychecks, and papayas without spots? We have a surplus of GMOs and the much of the world does not want their economies destroyed by our smut imports?
Have we not learned from history? There have been many times in the history of science where correlation is causation. Rachel Carson’s correlation on Monsanto’s DDT in the 60s had scientists calling her a crackpot. How could Nobel prize winning science be wrong everyone asked?!?!? It takes mavericks like Taleb and Seneff that are looking at broader systems through correlation because science is not available to give us causation.
I’m going to look at our current health crisis, trust my gut, and eat organic.
Excerpt from wiki on Correlation as Scientific Evidence: “Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be the strongest causal evidence available.[20] The combination of limited available methodologies with the dismissing correlation fallacy has on occasion been used to counter a scientific finding. For example, the tobacco industry has historically relied on a dismissal of correlational evidence to reject a link between tobacco and lung cancer.[21]”
There are super weeds growing everywhere in the GMO fields.To deal with this problem they want to use dioxins from Agent Orange 2,4-D on top of the Round Up pesticide that is already used.
It is going through the legal system for approval right now as we comment.
http://www.propagandists.org/propagandists/jon-entine/
Hey Jon. My the check-engine light came on again in my Ferrari and my contacts at Syngenta and Monsanto are both on holiday. So I was wondering if it would be all right if I borrowed your Ferrari?
Being a corporate shill certainly has its benefits!
Sweet–you believe people who call heterosexual AIDS a “myth”?
http://www.propagandists.org/propagandists/magic-johnson/
Nice judgment you have there Calamity. Keep those standards high.
Mr. Ad-hominem rears his head again…
It is absurd to talk about $25M funding when the actual scientists have not been named, and the studies have not been defined. Oh, and who is putting up the $25M? And who has been anointed to decide what “independent” means?
I have to admire the chutzpah, though. “If you tell a lie, make it a big one”.
@Jon—Infographics may be a good political or marketing tool, but I would urge you to be cautious and not go over to the dark side of propaganda. This would undermine the science-based track-record of GLP, regardless of how persuasive such approaches may be to an uninformed public.
@Calamity—As a simple rule of thumb, where possible, I try to focus on the validity of what people say, rather than speculating about their motivations.
You would make a much stronger point if you disclosed your full identity, income sources over the past decade, any past or pending lawsuits, professional credentials, and any other pertinent information that might motivate your opinions.
Nice propaganda infographic! Genera DB is full of holes and primarily paid for by your boss Jon! http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/pro-gmo-database-monsanto-most-common-funder-gmo-research/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Genetic_Literacy_Project
@Jon—Who did the analysis for the infographic; what were the criteria used to define the different safety categories; can we see the list of references used for the analysis?
I’d be especially interested in seeing the 11 references that claimed that GE-derived foods were less safe.
Without more detail, this kind of chart looks suspiciously “sciencey”.
The data was assembled by Karl Haro von Mogel..at Biofortified. GLP just put it in infographic form. Best to contact him directly.
As a point of comparison,
the great Seralini collected 3 million Euros plus (transparency and
honesty are not his trademarks) essentially from two multinational
retailers who have developed a market for « fed without GMOs »
meat and dairy, Carrefour and Auchan, for a « study » on
200 rats for two years.
BTW, he bragged about
having created a brass plate association for the very purpose of
hiding the origin of his funding and being able to claim that he and
colleagues had no conflict of interest.
The European Union and
France have each mobilized similar amounts for studies in response to
the Seralini garbage. See in particular http://www.grace-fp7.eu/
Learn how to read. I am refering to the Genera DB infographic NOT Factor GMO.
I am flabbergasted at the ignorance and arrogance of the people like yourself and Jon for many reasons.
Pure ignorance and our failing education system are to blame for people/industry that are willing to take an absolute position on GMO safety even though we have just begun to understand the genetics of our guts, animals and insects. The long-term effects of GMOs have just started to be researched.(Factor GMO). The current industry-led science ignores that we are 90% bacteria (like plants) and only 10% human cells. Big Ag research ignores this and only observes our cells reactions to Roundup/Glysophates. Well… like plants, our stomach bacteria, needed to process our nutrients, is disrupted. All the new gut (Microbiome) science that is being mapped, realizes the important pathways our flora is to our whole health.
Obvious to most… BUT… the industry and it’s huge supply chain have a lot to lose. So there are many reason for them to be employing the social engineering that has created this culture war.
The industry continue to discredit multi-disciplinarian thinkers (Bill Nye, Seneff, Shiva, etc.) that are looking at the broader genetics of our ecosystems and understand the most influential science in our current food system… POLITICAL.
Big Ag is spending millions paying politicians and other mouthpieces (Mark Lynas) to read a teleprompter and to change their minds about GMOs. Read these leaked documents outlining the plan (w/script) years before Mark Lynas made his public charade in the EU. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/oct/20/gm-food
And we need all this for what? For higher yields, profits and papayas without spots? We have a surplus of GMOs and the much of the world does not want their economies destroyed by our smut imports?
Have we not learned from history? There have been many times in the history of science where correlation is causation. Rachel Carson’s correlation on Monsanto’s DDT in the 60s had scientists calling her a crackpot. How could Nobel prize winning science be wrong everyone asked?!?!? It takes mavericks like Nye and Seneff that are looking at broader systems through correlation because science is not available to give us causation.
I’m going to look at our current health crisis, trust my gut, and eat organic.
Excerpt from wiki on Correlation as Scientific Evidence: “Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be the strongest causal evidence available.[20] The combination of limited available methodologies with the dismissing correlation fallacy has on occasion been used to counter a scientific finding. For example, the tobacco industry has historically relied on a dismissal of correlational evidence to reject a link between tobacco and lung cancer.[21]”
Guest: We don’t know who you are…but you don’t really know very much about science or agriculture. Here’s a basic fact that you missed in school: Science, by definition, seeks the truth. Anything other than science is belief, nothing more, nothing less. Science does not care whether you believe anything, i.e. it’s theologically neutral. It’s simply truth, as best we can determine it to be at any point in time. The truth will always come out of science.
Given that basic precept, I trust the science pertaining to GMOs and biotechnology in general, all of which says that there is no difference in terms of public health from consuming GMOs as they have been deployed in agriculture within North America throughout the past 2 decades. I do not trust the “beliefs” of anyone who would promote an idea without accepting the scrutiny of science.
Furthermore, as a human being who cares about the other 7 billion of us on this planet, I lament the nefarious influence of those who would denigrate and disparage GMO deployment to the detriment of people who truly need it; people who are starving, malnourished, diseased, and dying for lack of adequate food. My challenge to all of you who stand in the way of GMO deployment is to get out of your comfort zone and go see for yourself what damage your merciless attacks have done upon the impoverished, hungry people of this world. You will come out of it ashamed, and if you have any sense of humanity left in you, you will be motivated to do something about it.
err..science isn’t neutral…neutral science has been long lost…
Science is an approach to claims. It’s a method used to study objective reality. With that said, it “proves” nothing–absolutely nothing. Instead, it shows possibilities and probabilities, even potentials. There are no absolute truths in science except in the minds of those who either interpret the data or repeat the words of those who have interpreted the data. Allow me to re-emphasize this point: When a scientific study is done, data is gathered, but it means nothing until it is interpreted.
An interpretation is SUBJECTIVE NOT OBJECTIVE. You can “base” an interpretation, or subjectivity, on objectivity, but the interpretation itself remains separate from objective reality.
This is the fundamental flaw of the pro-vaccination movement today. They take what is in actuality an approach to claims and stretch it into an absolute truth by ignoring the inherent differences between the observer and the observed. This is also ironic because many in the pro-vaccination population claim to be “skeptics” or science supporters, but they fail to see their very religious and unscientific perspectives.
Additionally, there is a great deal of arrogance in modern science.
To add to the confusion, industries with completely separate agendas have stepped forward and enforced particular perspectives and interpretations of the science because such interpretations benefit those industries in some way. Perhaps the benefit is simply monetary. Or maybe there’s a larger, more sinister, agenda at hand coveted by oligarchs with eugenic ideologies.
We live in a day and age of misused and abused science. The same hijack of information happened to religions many decades ago. God was unattainable unless one showed servitude to the Church. Alternative thinking, mainly through the rise of Protestantism, changed that.
Now the prosperity of one’s soul is at the mercy of a new institution of power: corporate science.
rgds
The Food and Water Watch article made up several things about the GENERA project, manipulated quotes, and made false accusations that it was funded by Monsanto. They are not trustworthy reporters of the facts.
From your “Food and Water Watch” article:
“The partisan group has always incorrectly stated that the scientific literature shows that GMOs are safe.”
LOL
Ignoring the both the sources and writers credibility (I am currently looking for Schwabs credentials but FWW is a barely-known activist organization, cited by other sligtly larger activist organizations [like PFAW, which I follow] which isn’t good for its credibility), this statement alone indicates than the author knows nothing about what he’s talking about or is deliberately lying to the people reading said article.
It, the scientific literature, does indeed show that “GMOs” are safe, or, rather, no more risky than conventional crops. There is worldwide scientific consensus on that:
http://www.skeptiforum.org/richard-green-on-the-scientific-consensus-and-gmos/
I’m not gonna bother with the rest of the article, as that statement alone indicates that the author refuses to give an accurate reading of the situation.
Actually, Derek, the project is under the direction of a well known anti-GMO NGO: See https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/nags-national-association-for-genetic-safety-ngo-behind-independent-factor-gmo-study/ No funding sources were revealed. All of the scientists in it have well known stated biases. The entire journalism world, save for the hacks John Vidal and Carey Gillam, ignored it because it was too pathetic to cover. As for independent studies, I’ll stand by the 320 independent studies oversee by the European Commission and the two reports they issued–that’s independence. This… is junk science in the making.
To the dialog below, I would add one key question: Is this new “study” being conducted in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)? For those who do not know what that means, GLP is a codified set of criteria under which studies that are to be used for regulatory purposes must be conducted. The criteria for GLP were established by toxicology professionals in the 1970s, and since then all countries that have credible regulatory frameworks have adopted those criteria, beginning with the European Union and the United States of America. The reason for GLP in the first place was to negate the reporting of “dry lab” results, meaning fraudulent reports coming from people who didn’t actually conduct any research; they just made up the “data” and reported it to an unsuspecting audience. In short, anyone can set up a bogus “study” with a bunch of animals (real or imaginary animals), and come up with meaningless or fraudulent results. With a GLP compliant study, that’s not possible because all of the testing system and records coming from the study are subject to external audit. Moreover, any testing facility that conducts GLP compliant studies is itself subject to audit on ALL studies that it ever has conducted. There are criminal and civil penalties for anyone who purports to conduct a GLP compliant study which it turns out was fraudulent. I believe that the Seralinis of the world would be shut down quite easily if they were forced to do their experimentation under GLP compliance criteria.
So, determining that a study is already biased is somehow not biased? While I support science over ideology, I also support science over profit. This site is more than a little suspect and seems to treat all GMO concerns as “it’s not poisonous” and ignore environmental and other issues. Mr. Entine is more pundit than scientist and seems to have, guess what, and ideology he promotes.
Rob, the commentary did not conclude that the impending study is “already biased”. It made the point that the organization that conceived the study is outspokenly anti-GMO, and that key funding, much of which has not been disclosed, is from organizations who are ideologically opposed to GMOs. If Monsanto and Syngenta announced it was funding an “independent” study and helped select the key researchers they would be laughed out of the park–as have this proposed “independent” study; it is ideological science at its worst. As for your views on this site, it has no “ideology”; it covers human and agricultural science, and daily puts up about 20 articles from across the ideological spectrum. On the issue of food and GE, it carries articles from those supportive of the technology and those critical of it. If you are capable of writing a coherent article on any issue, please send it our way. We publish viewpoints from any perspective, and do not censor our blog contributors.
I say, let the “Conservatives” who genuflect at the feet of Any Corporation eat this stuff. Let their kids get cancer. I for one won’t be eating the junk.
Not sure about the “conservative” reference. 88% of the scientists polled at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is an Auber-liberal collection of scientists, say GMO foods are safe. And cancer rates in the US have been down sharply over the past 19 years, since GMO foods were introduced in the food supply. So perhaps GMOs actually contribute to protecting us against cancer?