Anti-GMO activist: Independent research? What independent research?

CKaPx_QVEAAUinc

12 thoughts on “Anti-GMO activist: Independent research? What independent research?”

  1. Laughably dishonest cartoon. Perhaps someone would like to post at least one link to a long term independent safety study which confirms the safety of a GM product? Of course there would need to be additional studies for each GM product, since the safety of one cannot prove the safety of others (See Starlink Corn, which was found to be quite toxic to some people) Truly independent long term safety studies are nearly impossible because independent researchers are blocked by GMO patent lawyers [1].

    It would be possible for the manufacturers of GM technology to provide a mechanism that would provide the necessary products and protect independent researchers from financial retaliation, but apparently that is more difficult than spending millions of dollars lobbying [2] and packing the government with industry lobbyists. [3]

    Numerous “accidental” releases of GM foods have occurred, and continue to occur, causing billions in losses to farmers and others. [4] The strategy seems to be “pollute the food supply so badly that GM foods cannot be compared to a control (non GM) food supply”

    The cartoon above indicates that there are many independent long term safety studies. It should be very easy to post some links to these studies if they truly exist. If the response is to post some other arguments, without SPECIFIC links to independent long term safety studies, you will be defaulting on the argument and proving that your cartoon is propaganda.

    [1] In 2009, 26 academic entomologists wrote to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that because patents on engineered genes do not provide for independent non-commercial research, they could not perform adequate research on these crops. “No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops,” they wrote.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html#.VdSNEvl8vc1

    [2] http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-05/gmo-lobbying-booming-business-labeling-laws-increase

    [3] http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/ucm196721.htm

    [4] http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/index.php?content=re_detail&gw_id=459&reg=0&inc=0&con=0&cof=0&year=2014&handle2_page=

    Reply
      • Karl,

        If you want to help prove that GMOs are safe, you need to point to a specific study which you think fits the criteria in this dishonest cartoon. Remember the criteria: Independent, long-term, and successful (unlike the three generation rat study which showed liver damage [1]). See how many of these criteria you can find in a single study, or just admit that all you have are short term, industry controlled studies or ones which reveal disturbing effects which of course require further study, which of course are never followed up on, because the GM industry is far better at bribing politicians and running PR campaigns than they are at funding independent safety studies to prove their products are safe.

        [1] https://disqus.com/home/discussion/geneticliteracyproject/debunking_claims_of_no_long_term_and_independent_gmo_studies/#comment-2201531399

        Reply
        • Let’s back up a second, Dave. You claimed that Starlink corn was toxic. I think you should address this positive claim of toxicity that you put out there. If you know that this was in error and you were wrong, please explain why you claimed this. If you instead have evidence that demonstrates this to be true, please present it so that I can change my opinion. If you ignore this claim then it will demonstrate that you are not prepared to have an honest exchange of ideas.

          The ‘liver damage’ study you refer to (Kilic et al.) had an extreme anomaly with their control animals that renders their data unreliable. If you had read this study, like I have, you would not consider it to be supportive of your argument about risk.

          Your comment reveals that you probably do not have any interest in reading and understanding any studies that fit your criteria, as you would have found some that fit them had you searched our Atlas using the terms I suggested. If you are interested in learning more, you owe it to yourself to take the time to search the Atlas and understand how to use it. If you are having genuine trouble finding something, you can let us know through the proper channels and that information will help us improve the Atlas for others.

          I have no desire to dance for you while you shoot at my feet.

          Reply
          • Hi Karl,

            Starlink was withdrawn, the president, general counsel, and vice president of market development at Aventis were fired, and over $100 million in fines were paid out. Does any of that prove Starlink was toxic? Nope. But will you try to make this conversation about Starlink instead of the veracity of blanket safety testing claims made by biotech advocates?

            That’s your choice. But the readers can see what you are doing.

            The important question at hand does not depend on any one study, so leaving your diversion attempt for another discussion I would appreciate it if you could stay on the main topic. The existence of independent safety studies is claimed by the biotech industry, it should be a fairly simple task to find out what they are talking about. What percentage are short term studies they conducted themselves, vs studies free of funding bias which lasted longer than, say, 90 days? I think you know the answer to that.

            Thanks for the tips on the GENERA search query. Here’s my results:

            Search query used: “long term” [safeconsume=positive effect]

            ONE study. So among the 400+ studies in the GENERA database, there is only ONE long term study with positive safety results? That made me wonder how many safety studies (of any duration) there are with NEGATIVE results…

            Search query used: [safeconsume=negative effect] = 11 results

            And then there’s the one with “mixed” results, the one you dismiss for having “an extreme anomaly with their control animals” that showed “minimal” liver damage and other issues. The one which called for further study. If the industry actually wanted to prove its products were safe, it would want to follow up on that study. Has it?

            The biotech industry knows how expensive it will be if their safety testing claims are debunked. The Starlink fiasco will look like a picnic. Billions are at stake, it’s no mystery why they fight independent testing AND act as though “the debate is over”. The king has no clothes.

            All you guys have to do is locate a whole bunch of long term safety studies, especially ones without the “funding bias” * which the biofortified website acknowledges. It sure looks like there aren’t very many.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias
            *
            studies funded by drug companies are four times more likely to favor the drug under trial than studies funded by other sponsors.

            The FDA determined in 2008 that the bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic containers is safe when leeched into food, citing chemical industry studies. Independent research studies reached different conclusions, with over 90 percent of them finding health effects from low doses of BPA.

          • Dave,
            You were the one that claimed that Starlink Corn was toxic, not me. So it is not a diversion for me to demand that you back it up with facts. You have admitted that you could not find support for this claim, which means you have admitted to making claims that you do not have evidence for.

            Thanks for giving GENERA a try. Your experience will be added to the data that we have on search queries that will help us refine the database’s functionality for the new version.

            I think you should spend more time reading the tutorials and the Glossary documentation to understand what you are doing more carefully. “Positive effect” means that there was a health benefit or a reduction in health risk due to the presence of the GMO being tested. What you are looking for are studies that show “no effect” which means it is just as safe as the non-GMO counterpart. Moreover, it seems you are selectively reporting search results to make it seem like there is more research supporting your position than the position you disagree with. I duplicated your search, and here are the results I got:
            “long term” AND safeconsume “negative effect”: 1 (retracted)
            “long term” AND safeconsume “no effect”: 18
            “long term” AND safeconsume “positive effect”: 1
            “long term” AND safeconsume “mixed”: 3.
            So it appears that you did learn how to use our database, but then did not like the fact that only one study agreed with your conclusion, and was retracted, so you instead reported the total number of studies which claimed negative health effects. Perhaps you were unaware of the overwhelming number of studies that found no effects (18 out of 23), but as you can see even from this crude abstract/title word search for “long term” supports the contention that there are many long term studies, and that most of them find that GMOs are just as safe as non-GMOs to consume.
            The 11 studies you mention which found negative health effects are a mere 6% of the studies currently in the database that studied health effects. There are over twice as many (24) that found positive health or safety benefits as those that found negative ones. You can spend your own time looking at funding sources at the level of detail that you desire, which are also compiled in our database – and you will find that independent research agrees with industry research – and outnumbers it as well. Professional conflict of interest was covered by Miguel Sanchez (2015) which found no such link in the scientific literature. We will have our full analysis published in a peer-reviewed journal in due time.

            I think you are smart enough to realize that you should probably adjust your beliefs on this topic.

          • Hi Karl,
            Thanks for the tips on the database, I didn’t read all the documentation, just started using it, so I missed the “no effect” filter. A pull-down menu would be better than guessing. And perhaps the database should include a field for length of study? Seems like an important item to be able to filter for, and since every study has that information it would be easy to include if you want it to be easily searchable.

            You say “there are many long term studies, and most of them find that GMOs are just as safe as non-GMOs to consume.”

            Is that really your contention? Let me help you out, since you want to help answer my question about how many long term studies there are showing GMOs are safe to eat. That is a good question, right? Let’s see if we can get anywhere near an answer…

            First, as we would expect, not all the studies which came up in the search were actual matches. What surprised me was how FEW of them were useful (in answering the question above). Remember the question’s parameters:

            Long term
            AND
            Safety (as you say “find that GMOs are just as safe as non-GMOs to consume”)

            The first study studied CELLS. (Impact of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ab on rumen epithelial cells) Hard to do long term safety tests in a petri dish unless you use some special definitions of “long term”.

            The next study only studied milk production and “presence in milk of transgenic DNA and the encoded protein Cry1Ab”. I guess that might be a “safety” study if you hold your beer mug just right. Did they report mortality or various health effects? The abstract doesn’t say, and the full text is unavailable. Maybe. Probably not. But as you know we could have 57 different studies showing how various compounds in GMO feed didn’t get into the milk of a cow, and that could prove almost nothing about whether the cow got sick. Especially if the study is only looking at production, like the next one…

            “Long term” “safety” study #3 was a 98 day pig growth study. It says little about the health of the animals, except how much they weighed and the fat on them. The study lasted 3 mos. Is this what you would call a long term safety study?

            BTW the GENERA link doesn’t work but the study is here:
            https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/jas/pdfs/83/5/0831068

            Study #4 which is tagged “no effect” says “the relative size of the spleen showed significant differences between fish fed the genetically modified soy diet compared with fish fed the non GM soybeans”

            Sounds like that one should be categorized “mixed” results. And followed up on. And of course a fish study isn’t real useful for proving GMOs are safe for humans to eat. Maybe the database needs a “kingdom” filter?

            Next…

            “Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants”

            No animals, no feed, this is a long term safety study? Nope.

            The next one looked like an actual safety study: “Expression of the Insecticidal Bean α-Amylase Inhibitor Transgene Has Minimal Detrimental Effect on the Nutritional Value
            of Peas Fed to Rats at 30% of the Diet”

            “From this short-term study, we conclude that transgenic peas may be used in the diet of mammals, including farm animals, particularly at the moderate levels of dietary inclusion recommended in commercial practice. However, this nutritional study with transgenic peas expressing a-AI cannot at this stage be taken as proof that transgenic peas are fit for human consumption. This may be established only with the use of further and more specific risk assessment testing procedures, which must be designed and developed with human consumers in mind.”

            So the researchers say its a short term study, and that other tests would be needed before GMOs could be fed to PEOPLE. Later on they say:

            “There is some public concern about (GMO pea) release for cultivation because their effects on the environment and consumers have not been documented, particularly in the long term. Although some of the agronomic concerns have been addressed, published studies assessing the nutritional consequences of the consumption of diets based on transgenic plants are rare.”

            Got that? This SHORT TERM study was from 1999, about six or seven years after GMOs were introduced. And studies of how they might affect the people eating them were still RARE. I’m sure the safety (for PEOPLE) of GMO food has been documented since then. Or not.

            And so it goes. Do I need to go on? You found 23 “long term” “safety” studies” with “positive” or “no” effect out of 400+ studies in your database. I’m having a hard time finding ANY which say what you imply they do. Maybe the rest of them are useful, but the first five or six are NOT what most people would say are ANYTHING like a safety study. But you say “there are many long term studies, and most of them find that GMOs are just as safe as non-GMOs to consume”. I see no proof of that.

            Maybe your “rough” search just needs work. If the majority of long term safety studies actually show no ill effects, that’s good news. But your “evidence” certainly is nowhere near proof that GMOs are safe, and it puts the lie to overblown hyperbole like “the debate is over”. Anyone who says that is full of baloney.

            If the biotech industry follows up on the multiple potential problems which HAVE been identified in an HONEST fashion I will be very glad to change my position. Until then… maybe you should change yours.

            There are very few if any long term safety studies showing GMO food is safe for humans to eat. So far you have failed to show otherwise.

            PS I look forward to seeing the evidence showing a lack of funding bias in the biotech field.

          • One month later, still no reply. Karl? You give up?

            In that time I did find reports of a long term safety study run by Monsanto on their flagship product glyphosate. Its VERY interesting and no one can say it was conducted by “Anti-GMO people”. They fed rats feed containing trace amounts of glyphosate, and the rats got cancer.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4wmS3v6YnQ

          • Karl, gave up all right. He gave up on you being honest enough to admit you were and are wrong.

  2. Well, well.
    I guess its getting clearer why Monsanto has so strongly opposed independent safety studies. Its because their own internal studies found negative results, especially at low level exposure. The documents have finally been released…

    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2985458/monsanto_knew_all_along_secret_studies_reveal_the_truth_of_roundup_toxicity.html

    This is why they’re running for the hills. This is why they rely on hyperbole and assertion. Their entire industry is about to be exposed as the fraud that it is. THEIR OWN STUDIES PROVE ROUNDUP IS HIGHLY TOXIC.

    Reply
    • Nonsense. The stuff has been used safely for over 40 years. If those studies showed it is toxic. we would see the results by now. Thus your ecologist article must be false.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.